Tripura High Court
Indrajit Deb & Ors vs The State Of Tripura & Ors on 9 December, 2019
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA 35 OF 2015
Indrajit Deb & Ors.
......Appellant (s)
Vrs.
The State of Tripura & Ors.
.....Respondent(s)
Present:
For the appellant(s) : Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. A.K.Bhowmik, Advocate General.
Mr. K. De, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 09/12/2019 (A. Kureshi, CJ).
This appeal is filed by the original petitioners to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12th of January, 2015 passed in WP(C) No.106 of 2010.
This case has a long history. Briefly stated the facts are as under:-
Petitioners are the employees of Tripura Road Transport Corporation (TRTC, for short). They had filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.24 of 2003 against the TRTC and the State Government complaining that the Government of Tripura though had granted increase in the Dearness Allowance on the basic pay of the employees of the State Government from a particular date, while in the case of the employees of TRTC, such benefits were granted at a later point of time. The petitioners had pointed out that the Government had increased the Dearness Allowance of the Government employees Page 2 of 7 w.e.f. 01.01.1999, thereafter w.e.f. 01.01.2000 and so on. Whereas in case of the employees of the TRTC the increase in the Dearness Allowance was delayed. For example the increase in the Dearness Allowance granted to the Government employees w.e.f. 01.01.2001 was not implemented in favour of the employees of the TRTC till 01.01.2003. Such anomalies were brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioners.
The writ petition came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 04.08.2008. The learned Single Judge made certain observations finding prima facie merits in the grievances of the petitioners and in the said judgment gave following directions:-
"28. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the matter needs consideration of the respondents consistently with the observations made above. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the State respondents to examine the grievance of the petitioners in the light of the observations made above and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Needless to say that they will bear in mind that the employees of the PSUs etc. were all along treated at par with their counter parts in the State Government Departments in the matter of grant of D.As from time to time. They will also bear in mind that in the counter affidavits filed, there is no indication as to what led to the disparity making a grievance against which, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
29. Entire exercise towards compliance of the aforesaid direction shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31st October,2008."
The Government undertook the exercise of examining the grievances of the petitioners in pursuance of the said directions of the learned Single Judge. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Tripura Page 3 of 7 passed an order on 9th October,2009 in which while rejecting the case of the petitioners for pay parity, he made following observations:-
".... In compliance of the above direction, related records in the matter have been examined carefully. On perusal of records it appears that the petitioners in their Writ petition had tried to give impression that the TRTC is a Government Department and accordingly its employees are supposed to get facilities like employers of the State Government. But such an impression is not based on reality. TRTC is completely a separate organization a corporation having its own Board of Directors. Recruitment Rules and other service conditions of the employees of the Corporation are determined by the TRTC Authority. State government does not recruit any employee of the TRTC nor determine their service terms. Since employees of the TRTC and other PSUs have their own distinct status, they are definitely not government employees. It is further mentioned that all PSUs including TRTC are treated alike in respect of grant of DA and other allowances. Therefore, it is not arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provisions of law in granting DA for the employees of TRTC and other PSUs.
2. In consideration of the above facts and circumstances, the undersigned is directed to inform that claim of the petitioner has been found not justified."
The petitioners thereupon once again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition(C) No.106 of 2010. This writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment. Following observations were made:-
"[13] While appreciating the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is confronted with 2(two) fundamental questions viz.
(i) Whether the Court can direct the State Government to grant the certain financial benefits including the DA to a categories of employees who are working in the Public Sector Undertakings alike the TRTC in a particular manner and
(ii) Whether while issuing the impugned order dated 09.10.2009, Annexure-20 to the writ petition, the respondents No.1 and 2 had failed to consider the observation and direction made in the Page 4 of 7 judgment dated 04.08.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.24 of 2003 or in the judgment dated 23.07.2009 in WA No.03 of 2009?
There cannot be any amount of doubt unless such materials are paced before this Court to demonstrate that the employees of two different sectors are situated alike in terms of their conditions of employment, the duties and responsibilities in the hierarchy, the Court would definitely not engage in a roving inquiry for purpose of directing the State Government to treat a category of employees with the another or for directing them to grant some benefits in a particular manner etc. It remains within the policy domain of the State Government. Unless those policies are found contrary to the constitutional principles, the Court shall not interfere with the said policy.
[14] The remaining question that falls for consideration by this Court is whether the order dated 09.10.2009 has been passed in breach of the observation or the direction made in the judgment dated 04.08.2008 or in the judgment dated 23.07.2009 respectively delivered in W.P.(C) No.24 of 2003 and W.A. No.03 of 2009. It is true that in the order there appears no exercise to give reasons why the two categories of employees are treated differently but it has been stated that the TRTC is completely a separate organization, a corporation having its own Board of Directors, Recruitment Rules and other asymmetrical service conditions. The State Government does not recruit any employee of the TRTC nor determine their service conditions. Since the employees of the TRTC and other PSUs have their own distinct status, they are definitely not Government employees. It is further mentioned that all PSUs including the TRTC are treated alike in respect of grant of the DA and other allowances. Therefore, it is not arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provisions of law for granting the DA for the employees of TRTC and other PSUs differently. Even though the statement of reasons is very cryptic but there is semblance of certain analogy, why the employees working under the TRTC are treated differently. Whether the employees who are working under the PSUs and the employees of the State Government are to be entitled to the same financial benefits or not? It depends on so many fiscal logics. This Court is not competent to delve into that paradigm. It is upon the State Government to determine. If someone is aggrieved by any policy determination which is not otherwise in conflict with the constitutional principles they may file representation, for mitigating their grievance, to the competent authority in the State Government.
Page 5 of 7
[15] Having held so, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs."
Appearing for the appellants, original petitioners learned counsel, Ms. R. Purkayastha submitted that the decision of the learned Single Judge requires reconsideration. The TRTC is within the financial and administrative control of the State Government. Till the year 2000, the State Government had always maintained a pay parity between the employees of the TRTC and the Government employees. Once again from the year 2008 onwards both sets of employees are treated at par. The Government has not demonstrated any reason why discriminatory treatment was meted out to the employees of the Corporation between the said period. She further submitted that the learned Single Judge in the earlier judgment dated 04.08.2008 had already upheld the petitioners' contentions of their entitlement of pay parity with the Government employees. The department did not consider the case of the petitioners in light of the observations made in the said judgment. This issue was thus no longer open for reconsideration before the learned Single Judge in the fresh petition filed by the petitioners.
Counsel relied on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tripura Jute Mills Officers' Association & Ors. Vrs. State of Tripura dated 08.04.2011 in which the Division Bench struck down the decision of the Government in not giving pay parity to the employees of the Tripura Jute Mills. She pointed out that the said decision was carried an appeal by the Government. The Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP.
Page 6 of 7
On the other hand, learned Advocate General opposed the appeal contending that the learned Single Judge has committed no error. The employees of TRTC form a distinct class. They cannot be compared with the Government employees for service conditions, pay and other emoluments. Whether to increase the Dearness Allowance and if so from which date must depend on range of factors including the financial resources of the organization.
Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we do not think that the learned Single Judge in the previous judgment dated 04.08.2008 had concluded the question of pay parity between the TRTC employees and the Government employees. Had this been so done, as contended by the counsel for the petitioners, there was thereafter no need or scope for issuing directions to the Government to consider the cases of the petitioners. The Court could as well have issued appropriate directions for bringing about pay parity. This issue thus was at large before the learned Single Judge in the second round of litigation when the petitioners filed the second petition.
Coming to the decision of the learned Single Judge on merits, we do not find any error in the view of the learned Single Judge. Admittedly the sets of employees of the TRTC and the State Government employees form different class. They do not belong to the same class of employees and therefore do not form a homogeneous class. In terms of service conditions such as pay and allowance the petitioners cannot claim parity with the State Government employees.
In the matter of pay fixation, Courts are always slow in interfering. Essentially it is a task of the Government or the Semi Page 7 of 7 Government organization duly aided and assisted by the experts in the field. While granting pay-scales including granting pay revision or increase in pay, the ability of the employer to meet with the expenditure needed for such pay revision would be one of the relevant considerations. The State Government, therefore, while implementing increase in the Dearness Allowance in case of TRTC employees, had to take into consideration all relevant factors including the finances of the Corporation. In absence of any internal discrimination, the petitioners cannot claim the benefits from a particular date.
The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Tripura Jute Mills (supra) was rendered in different factual backgrounds. The said organization was singled out by the Government while considering the applicability of revised pay-scales. The Court noted that all other Corporations were allowed to implement the recommendations of the pay commission. No discernible reason was cited for this differential treatment. The ground that the Tripura Jute Mills did not have sufficient funds was found incorrect. Even the Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP observed that the relief granted would be confined to the members of the Tripura Jute Mills Officers' Association. This decision is thus clearly distinguishable on facts.
In the result, writ appeal is dismissed.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ.