Tripura High Court
Sri Ajit Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Tripura on 31 August, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No.795 of 2016,
W.P.(C) No.796 of 2016,
W.P.(C) No.797 of 2016,
&
W.P.(C) No.798 of 2016
In W.P.(C) No.795 of 2016
Petitioner:
Sri Ajit Kumar Sharma,
son of late Nikunja Behari Sharma,
resident of Ramnagar Road No.4,
near 1st crossing, P.O. Ramnagar,
District : West Tripura, Agartala,
PIN : 799002
By Advocate :
Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate
-Versus-
Respondents :
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Principal
Secretary, Public Works Department,
New Secretariat Building, Government
of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat,
PIN : 799010, Agartala, West Tripura
2. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (R & B),
Government of Tripura, New
Secretariat Building, P.O. Secretariat,
PIN : 799010, District : West Tripura,
Agartala
By Advocate :
Mr. T.D. Majumder, G.A
In W.P.(C) No.796 of 2016
Petitioner:
Sri Dipak Das,
son of late Dinesh Chandra Das,
resident of 79 Tilla, Ramkrishna Pally,
P.O. Kunjaban, District : West Tripura,
Agartala, PIN :799006
By Advocate :
[2]
Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate
-Versus-
Respondents :
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Principal
Secretary, Public Works Department,
New Secretariat Building, Government
of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat,
PIN : 799010, Agartala, West Tripura
2.
The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (R & B),
Government of Tripura, New
Secretariat Building, P.O. Secretariat,
PIN : 799010, District : West Tripura,
Agartala
By Advocate :
Mr. T.D. Majumder, G.A
In W.P.(C) No.797 of 2016
Petitioner:
Sri Rasamay Datta,
son of late Harendra Kumar Datta,
care of late Srinibash Datta resident of
Town Bordowali, Mantri Bari Road
Extension, P.O. Agartala,
District : West Tripura, Agartala,
PIN : 799001
By Advocate :
Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate
-Versus-
Respondents :
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Principal
Secretary, Public Works Department,
New Secretariat Building, Government
of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat,
W.P.(C) No.795 of 2016
W.P.(C) No.796 of 2016
W.P.(C) No.797 of 2016
W.P.(C) No.798 of 2016 Page 2 of 8
[3]
PIN : 799010, Agartala, West Tripura
2. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (R & B),
Government of Tripura, New
Secretariat Building, P.O. Secretariat,
PIN : 799010, District : West Tripura,
Agartala
By Advocate :
Mr. T.D. Majumder, G.A
In W.P.(C) No.798 of 2016
Petitioner:
Sri Utpal Bhowmik,
son of late Dinabandhu Nath Bhowmik,
resident of Natun Pally, Dhaleswar,
P.O. Dhaleswar, District: West Tripura,
Agartala, PIN : 799007
By Advocate :
Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate
-Versus-
Respondents :
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Principal
Secretary, Public Works Department,
New Secretariat Building, Government
of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat,
PIN : 799010, Agartala, West Tripura
2. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (R & B),
Government of Tripura, New
Secretariat Building, P.O. Secretariat,
PIN : 799010, District : West Tripura,
Agartala
By Advocate :
Mr. T.D. Majumder, G.A
W.P.(C) No.795 of 2016
W.P.(C) No.796 of 2016
W.P.(C) No.797 of 2016
W.P.(C) No.798 of 2016 Page 3 of 8
[4]
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Date of delivery of : 31.08.2017
Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : Yes No
√
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.
2. All this writ petitioners being WP(C) No.795 of 2016 [Sri Ajit Kumar Sharma versus State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No.796 of 2016 [Sri Dipak Das versus State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) No.797 of 2016 [Sri Rasamoy Dutta versus State of Tripura & Others] and WP(C) No.798 of 2016 [Sri Utpal Bhowmik versus State of Tripura & Others] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as by this writ petitions a common grievance in the similar context has been exposited and a common relief has been urged.
3. All the writ petitioners are substantively holding the post of Assistant Engineer under PWD, Government of Tripura. The petitioners have joined their substantive post on the dates as reflected in the table below :
Sl. WP(C) No. Name of the petitioner Date of Joining No.
1. 795 of 2016 Sri Ajit Kumar Sharma 23.09.1978
2. 796 of 2016 Sri Dipak Das 30.04.1981
3. 797 of 2016 Sri Rasamay Datta 04.11.1978
4. 798 of 2016 Sri Utpal Bhowmik 22.09.1978 W.P.(C) No.795 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.796 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.797 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.798 of 2016 Page 4 of 8 [5] Thereafter, the petitioners did not get any substantive promotion which they are supposed to get to the next post of Executive Engineer (Grade-III) of Tripura Engineering Service.
However, the petitioners have been given the charge of the duty post in some cases since 2006 and they are continuing with this charge till now. They are given a paltry amount of Rs.300/- per month as the duty allowance. Cases of the petitioners have not been considered for promotion, even though there exists several vacancies.
4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have urged for the reliefs as under :
(1) To promote the petitioners to the Grade-III of Tripura Engineering Service [Executive Engineer] from the day when the petitioners acquired the eligibility by way of passing the departmental examination, (2) To release the consequential benefits. Further, the petitioners have urged (3) to pay them the full pay and allowances for the post of Executive Engineer as they were in the full duty charge of that post, even though they are substantively appointed in the Grade-IV of the Tripura Engineering Service [Assistant Engineer]. The action of the respondents as reflected in their communications denying the said benefit have been questioned in these writ petitions.
5. Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously argued that what the respondents are indulging in the case of the petitioners is, on the face of it, unfair W.P.(C) No.795 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.796 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.797 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.798 of 2016 Page 5 of 8 [6] labour practice and exploitation of labour which are anathema to the constitutional principles.
6. Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel has referred the decision of the apex court in Jaipal and Others versus State of Haryana and Others reported in (1988) 3 SCC 354 where it has been held that it is a constitutional obligation to ensure equal pay for equal work if two sets of employees discharge the similar responsibilities under the similar working conditions.
7. Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel has further relied on a decision of the apex court in Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union versus Union of India and Others reported in (1991) 1 SCC 619 where the apex court had occasion to observe that equal pay for equal work is recognised when the employees are discharging the similar duties and responsibilities.
Thus, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that the mode of assignment is not material, the material is what the employees are discharging in the post of Executive Engineer [CDC] and whether that is equal to that of the regular Executive Engineers, who are holding such assignments in the similar conditions.
8. From the other side, Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the assignment is not only of casual nature but is temporary and stop gap in nature and therefore, those principles as referred by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel can not apply.
W.P.(C) No.795 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.796 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.797 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.798 of 2016 Page 6 of 8 [7]
9. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. has referred a decision of the apex court in Arindam Chattopadhyay and Others versus State of West Bengal and Others [Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2013 delivered in Civil Appeal No.2521 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No.7420 of 2012]. There the Supreme Court had observed on deliberating on a slew of the previous judgments on the field, as follows :
"13. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that although the appellants were recruited as ACDPOs, the State Government transferred and posted them to work as CDPOs in ICDS projects. If this would have been a stop gap arrangement for few months or the appellants had been given additional charge of the posts of CDPO for a fixed period, they could not have legitimately claimed salary in the scale of the higher post, i.e., CDPO. However, the fact of the matter is that as on the date of filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal, the appellants had continuously worked as CDPOs for almost 4 years and as on the date of filing of the writ petition, they had worked on the higher post for about 6 years."
10. Mr. Majumder, learned G.A. as the ancillary fact has laid down before this court that all the petitioners are also holding the full duty charge of the Assistant Engineer and in addition, they are attending some duties attached to the post of Executive Engineer. They are not discharging the full duty of the Executive Engineer and as such, the doctrine of equal pay and equal work will not apply in the present case.
11. This court is in full agreement with Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. that very nature of the assignment of the duty shows that these are temporary and as a measure of stop gap arrangement, subject to the regular promotion. W.P.(C) No.795 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.796 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.797 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.798 of 2016 Page 7 of 8 [8]
12. Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel at this juncture has submitted that the state is also depriving the present petitioner from their promotion as due since 2013 onwards.
13. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. in reply thereto has submitted that for an interim order passed by the apex court, the promotion in the government services is in standstill. If that embargo is not removed, no promotion can be made.
14. Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this court is of the view that the moment, the said embargo will be removed by the apex court relating to the issue of the reservation, the state government shall make an exercise to consider the case of the promotion against the available vacancies. Such exercise shall be made within a period of 3(three) months from the day when the petitioners shall submit a copy of the judgment.
15. With the above observation and direction, this writ petitions stand partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE Sabyasachi.B W.P.(C) No.795 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.796 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.797 of 2016 W.P.(C) No.798 of 2016 Page 8 of 8