Tripura High Court
Sri Kamal Datta vs The State Of Tripura on 17 July, 2019
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.67 of 2016
Sri Kamal Datta,
son of late Santui Bhusan Datta,
resident of A.K. Road,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District: West Tripura
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Tripura, PWD (Road & Buildings),
Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala,
District: West Tripura, PIN: 799006
2. Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
PWD (Roads & Buildings),
Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. East Agartala, District: West Tripura, PIN: 799006
3. The Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Department of Finance, Capital Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala,
District: West Tripura, PIN: 799006
4. The Executive Engineer,
Internal Electrification Division,
Netaji Chowmuhani, Agartala,
P.O. Agartala, District: West Tripura, PIN: 799001
---- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Adv.
Mr. Raju Datta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Choudhury, GA
Date of hearing : 24.06.2019
Date of delivery of
Judgment and order : 17.07.2019
Whether fit for reporting : YES
Page 2 of 6
HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Judgment & Order (S. Talapatra,J) Being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 08.06.2016 delivered in WP (C) No.612/2015 (Kamal Datta vs. State of Tripura & Ors) by the learned Single Judge, this intra Court appeal has been preferred.
2. The appellant filed the said writ petition challenging the office order No.614 dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.4 whereby the pay of the petitioner was fixed provisionally in the scale of pay of Rs.3300- 7100/- by reducing his pay which was earlier fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 4000-7890/- on completion of 10 years of his service.
3. Consequentially, the writ petitioner (the appellant herein) urged for directing the respondent to restore his pay in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-7890/- from the day on which he had 10 years of completed continuous and satisfactory service in the post of Junior Electrician in terms of the office order dated 28.03.2003 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and also to provide him the 2nd ACP on his completion of 17 years of service as per Rule 10 of the Tripura State Civil service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (in short 'ROP Rules 2009').
4. There is no dispute in respect of the day of completion of 10 years or 17 years of service or in respect of the day on which the respective ROP Rules came into effect.
5. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4000-7890/- as per the ROP Rules 1999 and there was Page 3 of 6 no error in granting the same in his favour. By the impugned order, the respondents have misconstrued the relevant provision of the ROP Rules, 1999 and have on such misconceived premises, they reduced his pay in the scale of pay of Rs.3300-7100/-.
6. The respondents however refuted the said claim by filing the reply contending that the pay scale of Rs.970-2400/- which was admittedly the scale of the Junior Electrician (the entry scale) as per the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 (ROP Rules, 1988) was revised to Rs.3200-6030/- under ROP Rules, 1999 which came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Hence, on the completion of 10 years of continuous service as per Rule 10 of ROP Rules, 1999 the petitioner was entitled to the scale upgradation to the next higher scale as per Annexure-A to ROP Rules, 1999. The next higher scale of pay of Rs.3200-6030/- as per Annexure-A of the ROP Rules, 1999 was Rs.3300-7100/-. But the petitioner (the appellant herein) was wrongly and erroneously moved to the pay scale of Rs.4000-7890/- by the office order dated 28.03.2003 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition).
7. When the said wrong was detected by issuing the office order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) the competent authority corrected the said wrong and re-fixed the pay of the petitioner in the scale of pay of Rs.3300-7100/- w.e.f. the day when the petitioner had completed 10 years of continuous & satisfactory service.
8. The learned Single Judge has accepted the analogy as was advanced by the respondents and observed as follows: Page 4 of 6
"A writ petition is decided on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced in support of the pleadings by the parties. Simply because the fact is not specifically denied by the respondents, it cannot be assumed that the fact is proved, specially in the facts where the relief claimed is otherwise not admissible in terms of the relevant provisions of law. Since I am of the considered opinion that the movement to the next higher graded scale shall be in terms of Annexure-A of ROP Rules, 1999 on completion of 10 years of service, I am not at all inclined to consider other aspects as argued by learned senior counsel Mr. Bhowmik". In terms of the said observation writ petition filed by the appellant admission was dismissed.
9. It may be noted that the learned Single Judge has considered a case of one Rashi Ram Debbarma, Junior Electrician, who was given the pay scale of Rs.4000-7890/- on completion of 10 years of service under ROP Rules, 1999 on insistence of the writ petitioner. But the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim of equal treatment of the petitioner on observing that it is not clear from the writ petition how the benefit was granted to said Rashi Ram Debbarma, since deceased.
10. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the finding of the learned Single Judge is grossly erroneous and he has failed to persuade himself to consider the provisions of ROP Rules 1999. Annexure-C to the ROP Rules 1999 clearly provides the pay scale for the Junior Electrician (Entry 24 in Annexure-C to the ROP Rules, 1999) as under:
Sl. Name of the Prefix/Suffix Existing Revised No. Post to the post Scale Scale w.e.f.
01.01.1996
24 Jr. Electrician Junior 970-2400 3200-6030
- 1250-2890 4000-7890
Senior 1300-3220 4200-8650
Page 5 of 6
11. To appreciate this plea, we are persuaded to note that while defining the 'revised scale' under Rule 3 of the ROP Rules, 1999, it has been provided as under:
(d) "REVISED SCALE" means the corresponding revised scale of the pay in relation to the existing scale of pay, introduced from 01.01.1996 as indicated in column-4 of the Annexure-„C‟ or the revised scale corresponding to the existing gradation scale applicable to the post as per Annexure -"A" (except State Cadre Services). For State Cadre Services, column 3 of the Annexure-
„B‟ shall be applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and column 5 w.e.f. 01.01.1999."
12. Thus, it is abundantly clear that existing scale means the scale provided under column-3 of Annexure-C and the revised scale corresponding to the existing scale means the scale provided under column No.4 of Annexure-C.
13. According to Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the appellant the pay scale provided below column No.4 would be as were treated as the gradation scale and after 10 years of service the scale below Rs.3200-6030/- shall be entitled to the petitioner.
14. The gradation scale had been completely abandoned in the ROP Rules, 1999. The reference of the pay scales made under column No.3 are the gradation scales as provided by the ROP Rules, 1988 for the Junior Electrician etc., (the graded scale No.28) which was shown in part-C.
15. From the other side, Mr. Choudhury, learned GA has submitted that since the ROP Rules, 1988 was repealed and the pay- scales were replaced and revised by the ROP Rules, 1999, the benefit of movement will completely be governed by Rule 10 [Career Advancement Scheme (modified) w.e.f. 01.01.1999]. Page 6 of 6
16. It has been clearly provided under Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999 that the movement to the next scale at the end of 10 years and 17 years would be made as per the table in Annexure-A.
17. The appellant has completely misconceived the purpose of the column No.4. The column No.4 merely shows the corresponding revised scale against the existing gradation scale (the graded scale No.28). There is no ambiguity in this respect. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and this appeal appears to be completely bereft of merit.
18. We find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Choudhuri, learned GA that the pay scale provided under the column No.4 of the Annexure-C of the ROP Rules, 1999 shows the corresponding revise pay scale of the existing gradation pay scale. Those pay scales under column No.4 cannot by any stretch be treated as the gradation scale to be released periodically. These are not the special provisions in substitution of Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999.
19. Having observed thus, the appeal stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE satabdi