Tripura High Court
Unknown vs For on 25 April, 2022
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 06 of 2022
For petitioner(s) : Mr. P Roy Barman, Sr. Adv
Mr. K Nath, Adv
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D Bhattacharjee, GA
Mr. S Saha, Adv HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Order 25.04.2022 Heard Mr. P Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. S Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents..
A short question falls for consideration of this court in this writ petition. The petitioner is a retired judge of the Gauhati High Court. The facts are not at all disputed. The petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of NSA Advisory Board, in exercise of power conferred by Section 9 of the National Security Act, 1918, by the Notification dated 07.08.2008 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) with immediate effect. The said assignment has been discontinued by the notification dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) when the NSA Advisory Board was reconstituted by excluding the petitioner.
When the petitioner was appointed as the Chairman of the NSA Advisory Board, he was holding the position of President, State Page 2 of 6 Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [01.07.2008-15.07.2011] and thereafter, the position of Chairman, Police Accountability Commission [16.07.2011 - 31.01.2016]. As the petitioner was holding the dual assignments, he was drawing the remuneration respectively for the positions of President of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and Chairman, Police Accountability Commission in the relevant time. He was not paid any remuneration during the period from 01.07.2008 to 31.01.2016 for his holding the position of Chairman, NSA Advisory Board, nor the petitioner had claimed any such remuneration during the said period.
It has been asserted by the respondents in their reply that during the period from 21.07.2008 to 31.01.2016, the petitioner was drawing the salary of a High Court Judge minus the pension with some other benefits as attached to the post of High Court Judge.
In this regard, there is no dispute. But for the period from 01.02.2016 to 31.11.2018 the petitioner has not been paid any remuneration for holding the position of Chairman, NSA Advisory Board. In such circumstances, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura, Agartala on 05.02.2018. In that letter, he had also questioned the legality of the reconstitution of NSA Advisory Board. However, he did not carry forward that challenge as he had confined his claim for remuneration for the period from 01.02.2016 to 31.11.2018 in that letter.
Page 3 of 6
In response to that letter dated 05.12.2018, the petitioner had been informed by the Home Department by their communication under No. F.25(40)-PD/2000(L)/675 dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) that for the said period from 01.02.2016 to 30.11.2018, the petitioner will be paid remuneration @ Rs.5,000/- per month for his holding the position of Chairman of NSA Advisory Board. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner wrote another letter and claimed as follows:
"I may mention here that Justice M.L. Singhal, a retired judge of the Gauhati High Court was appointed as Chairman of the NSA Advisory Board of this State in 2000 and his terms and conditions have been notified by this government in the Home department vide notification No. F.3(25)PD/99 dated 26.12.2001. His salary/honorarium was Rs.22440 per month with vehicle and rent free accommodation. The pay of a high court judge in 2001 was 39000/- only. Reducing the pension his remuneration seems to have been fixed at Rs.19500+2940 (allowances)=22440 (copy enclosed) which is the norm followed in fixing pay of a retired High Court Judge assigned to perform the job of Chairman NSA Advisory board anywhere else in the country. The pay of high court judges was revised to Rs.80000 in 2006 and to Rs.225000 in 2016. It is pertinent to mention that Government of India also had standing order to fix remuneration for retired High Court Judges reemployed in various capacities in Government of India following the same formula, i.e. pay and allowance of serving high court judge minus pension.
In view of the above may I reasonably claim pay/honorarium for the period from 01.02.2016 to 30.11.2018 for performing as Chairman of the Board in the same manner, that is to say, pay of the High Court judge in 2016 reduced by pension plus other admissible allowances."
[Emphasis added] The said letter dated 21.06.2021 is available at Annexure-6 to the writ petition.
The fact that Justice ML Singhal, a retired judge of the Gauhati High Court had been drawing the pay of the High Court Judge minus the pension when he was holding the solitary assignment of Page 4 of 6 Chairman, NSA Advisory Board has not been disputed by the respondents. Apart that, the respondents have filed their reply but have not given any reason why the differentiation has been made in respect of the petitioner; the said action is discriminatory.
It may be noted that the petitioner is also a retired judge of the Gauhati High Court and at the relevant period, i.e. from 01.02.2016 to 30.11.2018 he was also holding the solitary assignment of Chairman, NSA Advisory Board, but the respondents without assigning any intelligible reason has stated that he is entitled to Rs.5000/- only.
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned GA having referred to the reply filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 has contended that the petitioner was holding the post of Chairman by dint of the notification dated 07.08.2008 in addition to his other assigned duties and therefore paying any remuneration separately as Chairman of NSA Advisory Board did not arise. During the period from 01.02.2016 to 30.11.2018, while the petitioner was holding the solitary post of Chairman, NSA Advisory Board, he did not raise the issue that he was not receiving any remuneration. Only after reconstitution of NSA Advisory Board, the petitioner raised the said issue of not receiving any remuneration. Hence, considering his claim, the government decided to pay @ Rs. 5,000/- per month for the period from 01.02.2016 to 30.11.2018 as the other members of the Board were drawing Rs.4,000/- per month. It has been asserted that during the period from 01.02.2016 to 30.11.2018 only one case was referred to NSA Page 5 of 6 Advisory Board and the issue of discrimination vis-à-vis remuneration allowed to Justice Singhal (Retired High Court Judge) is not tenable.
Mr. P Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has quite succinctly submitted that the remuneration is determined against the position held by the retired judges and not on the basis of how many cases they would deal during their tenure. Even, during the tenure of Justice Singhal, how many cases were referred has not been stated and is also not required, inasmuch as, the remuneration attached to the position is in contemplation to the work to be assigned to them. Even when no work is assigned to them, Chairman, NSA Advisory Board is entitled to get the remuneration attached to the position. As such, the rationale provided by the respondents is not only unintelligible but also unsustainable.
Having appreciated the rival contention as raised by the counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that when there is a precedent for determining the remuneration of Chairman, NSA Advisory Board, the respondents No. 1 & 2 ought to have followed that precedent. Even the guidelines of the Government of India are as such. The respondents should have avoided arbitrarily determining the remuneration at Rs.5,000/- per month. It is disgraceful. Moreover, it is apparent discrimination between the similarly situated persons who have held the same position of Chairman, NSA Advisory Board.
Page 6 of 6
As such, the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner the remuneration at the rate of the salary of a High Court Judge minus the pension during the said period with other benefits as enjoyed by Justice (Retired) M.L. Singhal. The amount that would accrue in view of the aforesaid direction shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date when a copy of this order will be furnished by the petitioner to the respondent No.2.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents for doing the needful.
JUDGE lodh