Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Smt. Sutapa Majumder on 5 March, 2019
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 15
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
(1) WA NO.44 OF 2017
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary,
Finance Department,
Government of Tripura, having his office at
Civil Secretariat,
P.O. Secretariat Complex,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
2. The Deputy Secretary to the
Government of Tripura,
Finance Department, having his office at
Civil Secretariat, P.O. Secretariat Complex,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
3. The Director of Health Services,
Government of Tripura, having its office at
Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Sutapa Majumder,
W/O Dr. Abhijit Ghosh,
R/O Village ITI Road, Indranagar,
P.O. Indranagar, P.S. East Agartala,
Sub Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
----Respondent(s)
(2) WA NO.43 OF 2018
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Commission & Secretary,
Health & Family Welfare Department,
Government of Tripura,
Capital Complex, resident of
Kunjaban, Agartala, Pin-799006.
2. The Secretary to the
Government of Tripura,
Finance Department, having his office at
Civil Secretariat, P.O. Secretariat Complex,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
3. The Director of Health Services,
Government of Tripura, having its office at
Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
----Appellant(s)
Page 2 of 15
Versus
1. Sri Nikhil Chandra Das,
S/O Late Amrit Lal Das,
P.O. Kumarghat, Vill-Ratiabari,
P.S. Kumarghat,
District-Unakoti, Tripura, Pin-799 264.
2. Sri Kalabindu Singh,
S/O Sri Indrajit Singh,
P.O. Kamalpur, Village-Bara Surma,
P.O. Kamalpur, District-Dhalai,
Tripura, Pin-799 288.
3. Sri Subhash Aditya,
S/O Late Dhirendra Kumar Aditya,
P.O. Sarasima,
Village-Harudas Tilla(College Square),
P.S. Belonia, District-South Tripura, Pin-799 155.
4. Sri Amal Majumder,
S/O Late Manindra Majumder,
P.O. Belonia, Village-Arjya Samaj Para,
P.S. Belonia, District-South Tripura, Pin - 799 155.
5. Sri Uday Sankar Saha,
S/O Late Pulin Behari Saha,
P.O. R.K. Pur,
Village-Rajarbag, P.S. Udaipur,
District-Gomati, Tripura, Pin-799 120.
6. Sri Sibudhan Chakraborty,
S/O Late Birendra Chakraborty,
P.O. Kumarghat,
Village-Uttar Pabiacherra, P.S. Kumarghat,
District-Unakoti, Tripura, Pin-799 264.
7. Sri Sudhir Debbarma,
S/O Sri Rajmohan Debbarma,
P.O. & P.S. Panisagar,
District-North Tripura, Pin-799 260.
8. Sri Tapan Das,
S/O Late Surendra Kumar Das,
P.O. & P.S. Gokulpur, District-Gomati,
Tripura, Pin-799 114.
----Respondent(s)
(3) WA NO.44 OF 2018
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary,
Finance Department,
Government of Tripura, having his office at
Civil Secretariat,
P.O. Secretariat Complex,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
Page 3 of 15
2. The Deputy Secretary to the
Government of Tripura,
Finance Department, having his office at
Civil Secretariat, P.O. Secretariat Complex,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
3. The Director of Health Services,
Government of Tripura, having its office at
Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura.
4. The Chief Medical Officer,
Dhalai, Ambassa, Tripura, having its office at
Dhalai, Ambassa, Tripura.
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sri Haradhan Das,
S/O Sri Santiram Das,
Resident of Village-Manik Bhandar,
P.O. Manik Bhandar, Kamalpur,
District-Dhalai, Tripura.
2. Sri Joy Krishna Debbarma,
S/O Late Rashmani Debbarma,
Resident of Village-Kamranga,
P.O. Chankup, Kamalpur,
District-Dhalai, Tripura.
3. Sri Radhacharan Debbarma,
S/O Late Bahudas Baishnab @ Bahudas Debbarma,
Resident of Village & P.O. Maharani, Kamalpur,
District-Dhalai, Tripura.
----Respondent(s)
(4) WA NO.2 OF 2019
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary,
Finance Department,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, Agartala, Pin-799 010.
2. The Additional Secretary,
Finance Department,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex,
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, Agartala, Pin-799 010.
3. The Joint Secretary,
Finance Department,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex,
Page 4 of 15
P.S. New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, Agartala, Pin-799 010.
4. The Director of Health Services,
Government of Tripura,
Pandit Nehru Complex,
Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. West Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin-799 006.
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Monoranjan Naha,
S/O Late Shital Chandra Nath,
Pharmacist(with Diploma in Pharmacy) under
Directorate of Health Services,
Government of Tripura.
AND
Sri Tapan Kumar Deb,
S/O Late Umesh Chandra Deb,
Resident of Sripally, beside SBI Dukli Branch,
P.O. Madhuban, P.S. Amtali,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799 003.
----Respondent(s)
For appellant(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.
Mr. C.S. Sinha, State counsel
For respondent(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate
Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order : 5.03.2019
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (O R A L)
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
In all these matters, the issue involved is very simple and
that being as to whether each one of the writ petitioners would be
entitled to the monetary benefits for a limited period, which this
Court understands is not more than approximately `60,000/- to
`70,000/- per person.
Page 5 of 15
2. Having given our thoughtful consideration, we are of
the considered view that perhaps, the Government needs to
reconsider its decision of assailing the view taken by the learned
Single Judge. We may not be misunderstood to have expressed
any opinion on the merits or for that matters affirmed the
judgment rendered and the view taken by the learned Single
Judge, but considering the fact that a welfare State must not
discriminate against its employees, the matter needs to be given a
fresh look.
3. The controversy is small. From the year 1963 till the
year 1988, the State had always treated the Pharmacists with
Diploma(commonly termed as Diploma holders) as a separate
class and granted pay scale which was slightly higher than the
Pharmacists without Diploma.
4. The legislative history(subordinate), in so far as the
Pharmacists is concerned, stands considered by the learned Single
Judge, which we extract hereinunder:
"(I) In the ROP Rules, 1963, in the Schedule-I [Page-38] the
following revised pay scales against their existing scale of pay
were provided:
Sl. Name of the Existing Revised scale Re-
No. Post scale of pay of pay marks
11 Pharmacist Rs.100-4- Rs.150-5-195-
180-5-200 EB-5-250
12 Pharmacist Rs.55-3-88- Rs.125-3-140-
(Compounder) EB-3-118-4- 4-156-EB-4-
130 200
(II) In the ROP Rules, 1975, in the Schedule-I [Page-73],
the following revised pay scales against their existing scale of
pay were provided:
Sl. Name of the Present Revised scale Re-
Page 6 of 15
No. Post/Service scale marks
17 Pharmacist Rs.150- Rs.260-10-390-15-
250/- 495 (for D. Pharma)
18 Pharmacist Rs.55-3-88- Rs.240-8-320-10-
EB-4-200 440 (for others) E.B.
after 8th & 15th
After Stages
the ROP Rules, 1975, by a further notification, the revised pay
scale of the Pharmacist [Diploma in Pharmacy] of `260-10-
390-15-495 was modified to `325-15-445-20-565-25-665 [EB
after 8th and 15th stages].
(III) In the ROP Rules, 1982, the revised pay scales were
provided under Hospital Services of the Health and Family
Welfare Department [Page-43]. The Pharmacist [with Diploma
in Pharmacy] was brought under Grade-II of that services and
the other Pharmacist [without Diploma in Pharmacy] was
brought under Hospital Services, Grade-III with the following
revised scale:
Sl. Name of the Post Present Scale Revised Remarks
No. Scale
31 Hospital Services, Rs.325-15-445-20- Rs.560-25-
Grade-II 565-25-665 (EB 710-30-
after 8th and 15th 860-40-
stages) 1300/-
32 Hospital Services, Rs.240-8-320-10- Rs.430-15-
Grade-III 440/- (EB after 8th 580-20-
and 15th stages) 600-25-
850/-
It is apparent from the ROP Rules, 1982 that the pre-
revised pay scale of `325-665/- was revised to `560-1300/-
and the said scale is higher than the scale of Pharmacist [Non-
Diploma]. The difference in the scale of pay of two categories
of Pharmacist was maintained in conformity to the preceding
ROP Rules. By the ROP Rules, 1988 and its subsequent
amendments, the present controversy has been generated. On
16.09.1988, the ROP Rules, 1988 was published giving its
effect from 01.01.1986. In the original ROP Rules, 1988 the
post of Pharmacist [Diploma in Pharmacy] was placed under
Part-B of Schedule-I [Page-71] and provided with the following
modified and the revised pay scale:
Sl. Name of Post Present Re- Modified Revised Re-
No. Scale designation Present Scale marks
of the Post, Scale, if
if any any
13 Pharmacist Rs.560- ---- Rs.800- Rs.2000
[with Diploma 1300/- 1860/- -4410/-
in Pharmacy]
Page 7 of 15
By the said ROP Rules, 1988 at Sl. No.50 [viii] of Part-B of
Schedule-I it has been seen that the post of the Compounder
has been re-designated as the Pharmacist. Similarly, in Sl.
No.50 [ix], the post of Assistant Homeopath was re-designated
to the post of Pharmacist (Homeo) and in the Sl. No.50 (x) the
post of Assistant to Dentist was re-designated to the post of
Pharmacist (Dental) whereas the post of Clerk-cum-
Compounder under Sl. No.50(xiii) was re-designated to the
post of Pharmacist. For purpose of reference, those entries
under Sl. Nos.50 (viii), 50(ix), 50(x) and 50(xii) appearing
under Part-B of the Schedule-I [page -75 of the ROP Rules,
1988] are extracted hereunder:
Sl. Name of Post Present Re- Modified Revised Re-
No. Scale designation Present Scale marks
of the Post, Scale, if
if any any
(A) Hospital and
Miscellaneous
Services
(a) Senior Grade
50 Grade-I Rs.600- Rs.750- Rs.1700-
1440/- 1750/- 3980/-
Grade-II Rs.560- Rs.650- Rs.1450-
1300/- 1595/- 3710/-
Grade-III Rs.430- Rs.600- Rs. 1300-
850/- 1440/- 3220/-
Duty Posts:
...viii) Compounder Pharmacist
ix) Assistant Pharmacist
Homeopath (Homeo)
x) Assistant to Dentist Pharmacist
(Dental)
...xii) Clerk-cum-
Compounder Pharmacist
It can also be noticed from the Part-C of the ROP Rules that
those Pharmacists who were appointed in the Departments
other than the Health & Family Welfare Department and were
enjoying the pre-revised pay scale of `560-1300/- were
provided with the revised scale of pay of `1450-3710/-. The
relevant part from the Part-C [Page-135] of ROP Rules, 1988
is reproduced hereunder:
Sl. Name of Post Present Re- Modified Revised Re-
No. Scale designation Present Scale marks
of the Post, Scale, if
if any any
21 Pharmacist Rs.560- Senior Rs.650- Rs.1450
Compounder etc. 1300/- Pharmacist 1595/- -3710
Page 8 of 15
Similar other Rs.470- Pharmacist Rs.600- Rs.1300
posts 1025/- 1440/- -3220/-
(except those Rs.430- Junior Rs.470- Rs.970-
under Health & 850/- Pharmacist 1025/- 2400/-
Family Welfare (similar for
Department other
posts)
Immediately after introduction of the ROP Rules, 1988, the
Finance Department issued a corrigendum under No.F.(6)-
FIN(PC)/88 dated 24.09.1988 for deletion of the entry
„Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy]‟ in column 2 and its
scale `560-1300‟ under column No.3 in serial No.13 of the ROP
Rules, 1988 [Page-71]. Further, the entry „Pharmacist [with
Diploma in Pharmacy]‟ in column No.2 of Sl. No.50 (XIII) was
deleted by the said corrigendum dated 24.09.1988, Annexure-
P/1 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014. The fact
of the said correction unleashed the following structure
relating to their pay scales:
Sl. Name of Post Present Re- Modified Revised Re-
No. Scale designati Present Scale marks
on of the Scale, if
Post, if any
any
(A) Hospital and
Miscellaneous
Services
a) Senior Grade
50 Grade-I Rs.600- Rs.750- Rs.1700-
1440/- 1750/- 3980/-
Grade-II Rs.560- Rs.650- Rs.1450-
1300/- 1595/- 3710/-
Grade-III Rs.430- Rs.600- Rs. 1300-
850/- 1440/- 3220/-
Duty Posts:
...viii) Compounder
ix) Assistant
Homeopath
x) Assistant to
Dentist
...xii) Clerk-cum-
Compounder
xiii) Pharmacist
[with Diploma in
Pharmacy]
[10] Thereafter, by another notification under
No.F.4(6)/FIN(PC)/88 dated 26.11.1988, Annexure-P/2 to the
writ petition being W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014, the amendment
has been carried out in the ROP Rules, 1988. The said
amendment called Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay)
Page 9 of 15
2nd Amendment Rules, 1988 was given effect from
01.01.1986. In the note below Clause (A) (2) below Rule 7 (1)
[Page-15] the words „a post for a particular career as
mentioned‟ has been added after the words „the purpose of,
appearing in the fourth line or in the Note below „A(2)-
personal Pay‟. Many more amendments have been carried out
by the 2nd Amendment Rules but so far the Health & Family
Welfare Department and the post of Pharmacist are
concerned, the following amendment is relevant:
"(x) Page-75 (Health & F.W. Department)
Sl. No.50
At the bottom of the page the entry „xiv) Pharmacist‟ shall be
inserted in col.2 below the entry „xiii) Pharmacist [with
Diploma in Pharmacy]‟, as incorporated by Finance
Department‟s Corrigendum of even number dated
24.09.1988."
As a result of the amendment as carried out by the said
notification dated 26.11.1988 [See Page-75 of the ROP Rules,
1988], the changes that occurred in the structure of the post
vis-a-vis the pay scale are as under:
Sl. Name of Post Present Re- Modified Revised Re-
No. Scale designation Present Scale marks
of the Post, Scale, if
if any any
(A) Hospital and
Miscellaneous
Services
a) Senior Grade
50 Grade-I Rs.600- Rs.750- Rs.1700-
1440/- 1750/- 3980/-
Grade-II Rs.560- Rs.650- Rs.1450-
1300/- 1595/- 3710/-
Grade-III Rs.430- Rs.600- Rs. 1300-
850/- 1440/- 3220/-
Duty Posts:
...viii) Compounder Pharmacist
ix) Assistant Pharmacist
Homeopath (Homeo)
x) Assistant to Pharmacist
Dentist (Dental)
...xii) Clerk-cum- Pharmacist
Compounder
xiii) Pharmacist
[with Diploma in
Pharmacy]
xiv) Pharmacist
Page 10 of 15
Most surprisingly after 20 years and more by the notification
under No.F.4(6)/FIN(PC)/82 dated 25.04.2009, Annexure-P/7
to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014, the
following changes have been made in supersession of the
corrigendum dated 24.09.1988 and Para-2(x) of 2nd
Amendment of the ROP Rules, 1988 as was notified by the
notification dated 26.11.1988:
"2. In the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988:
(a) Page-71 (Health & Family Welfare Department)
Sl. No.13
The post „Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy]‟ along with its pre-
revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/- appearing in Col. 2 & 3 against Sl.
No.13 at Page-71 shall be deleted.
(b) Page-71 (Health & Family Welfare Department)
Sl. No.50
At the bottom of the Page-75 the post „Pharmacist [with Diploma in
Pharmacy]‟ in receipt of pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/- shall
be inserted in Col. 2 & 3 as sub-serial (xiii) under Sl. No.50."
5. One thing is certain upto a particular point of time, the
Government itself had drawn reasonable classification in so far as
the post of Pharmacist is concerned. The distinction between a
Pharmacist, who is a Diploma holder and a non-Diploma holder,
was evidently clear. Perhaps, it was based on reasonable
classification.
6. It be only observed that even in the 1988 Rules
effected from 01.01.1986, though initially such classification was
drawn by the Government but subsequently, such subordinate
legislation was amended, oblitering the classification with respect
to the pay scale.
7. At this juncture, it be also observed that with respect to
the other Departments(except Health & Family Welfare), the
Government continued with such reasonable classification.
Page 11 of 15
Resultantly, Pharmacists with Diploma holders continued to draw
the Revised Pay Scale of `1450-3710/- instead of what the
Government wants to offer, i.e. `1300-3220/-.
8. Sri Deb invites our attention to the observations made
by the Apex Court in (2016) 3 SCC 643, Shree Bhagwati Steel
Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr. in
para 29 of the Report which reads as under:
"29. It would be seen that Shri Aggarwal is on firm ground
because this Court has specifically stated that rules or
regulations which are in the nature of subordinate legislation
which are ultra vires are bound to be ignored by the courts
when the question of their enforcement arises and the mere
fact that there is no specific relief sought for to strike down or
declare them ultra vires would not stand in the court‟s way of
not enforcing them. We also feel that since this is a question
of the very jurisdiction to levy interest and is otherwise
covered by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court, it
would be a travesty of justice if we would not to allow Shri
Aggarwal to make this submission."
9. Sri Deb also invites our attention to the observations
made by the Apex Court in (1981) 4 SCC 173, K.P. Varghese
vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam & Anr. Relevant portion of
the judgment reads as under:
"11. ................................................................
These two circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes are,
as we shall presently point out, binding on the Tax
Department in administering or executing the provision
enacted in sub-section (2), but quite apart from their binding
character, they are clearly in the nature of contemporanea
expositio furnishing legitimate aid in the construction of sub-
section(2). The rule of construction by reference to
Page 12 of 15
contemporanea expositio is a well established rule for
interpreting a statute by reference to the exposition it has
received from contemporary authority, though it must give
way where the language of the statute is plain and
unambiguous. This rule has been succinctly and felicitously
expressed in Crawford on Statutory Construction (1940 Edn.)
where it is stated in paragraph 219 that
administrative construction (i.e. contemporaneous
construction placed by administrative or executive officers
charged with executing a statute) generally should be clearly
wrong before it is overturned; such a construction, commonly
referred to as practical construction, although non-
controlling, is nevertheless entitled to considerable weight; it
is highly persuasive.
The validity of this rule was also recognised in Baleshwar
Bagarti v. Bhagirathi Dass, ILR 35 Cal 701 where Mookerjee, J.
stated the rule in these terms:
It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that courts in construing a statute will give much weight to the interpretation put upon it, at the time of its enactment and since, by those whose duty it has been to construe, execute and apply it." and this statement of the rule was quoted with approval by this Court in Deshbandhu Guptu & Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., (1979) 4 SCC 565. It is clear from these two circulars that the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which is the highest authority entrusted with the execution of the provisions of the Act, understood sub section (2) as limited to cases where the consideration for the transfer has been understated by the assessee and this must be regarded as a strong circumstance supporting the construction which we are placing on that sub-section."
To similar effect, references can be made to 1991 Supp(1) SCC 125, Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise(para 15) and (2016) 1 SCC 780, Page 13 of 15 Spentex Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Ors.(para 26).
10. We also notice that in the case of one such Pharmacist, who, though was appointed in the year 1984, the matter was taken to the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, and in SLP(Civil) No.198 of 2011, titled as Manoranjan Naha vs. State of Tripura with an order dated 28.03.2011, the Court directed the State to consider the petitioner's representation.
11. It is only pursuant thereto, the Government and more specifically the Finance Department, took a view by passing an order dated 31.10.2013, relevant portion whereof reads as under:
".............................As per principle of „scale to scale revision of pay‟ as adopted by the State Government for revision of pay of the employees, the revised pay scale of Rs.1450-3710/- under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 is the one, which corresponds to the pre- revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/- under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1982. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner for the revised pay scale of Rs. 2000- 4410/- as erroneously shown in the TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 in Sl. No.13 at Page-71 of the same rules is very much higher compared to revised pay scale corresponding to pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/-. Accordingly, considering the representation made by Shri Manoranjan Naha both in person and writing on their merit, the claim of the Petitioner cannot be agreed to.
However, as the pay scale of Rs.1300-3220/- meant for Pharmacist (with Diploma in Pharmacy) under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 had been revised to Rs.4200-8650/- under the TSCS (Revised Page 14 of 15 Pay) Rules, 1999, which had been revised subsequently to PB-2(Rs.5310-24000/-) + G.P. Rs.2400/- under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 effective from 01.01.2006, the Pharmacists (with Diploma in Pharmacy) deserve separate pay scale than existing pay scale/structure allowed to them in view of their higher qualification compared to the non-diploma Pharmacists".
(emphasis supplied)
12. Not only that, the demand of the Pharmacists with Diploma holders was favourably considered and recommended by the Pay Anomaly Committee(Fourth Tripura Pay Commission) wherein it is observed that:
"The Commission had looked into the R.O.P. Rules, 1988 and observes that posts requiring Diploma after HS(+2 stage) have been allowed the initial scale of pay of Rs.1450-3710/=. The Commission feels that the same principle should be followed in the case of Pharmacist too.
RECOMMENDATION The scale of pay of Rs.1450-3710/= with next higher scale of Rs.1700-3980/= be allowed to the post of Pharmacist.
"
13. It is in this backdrop, we are of the considered view that the State needs to revisit its decision, and as such, we dispose of the writ appeals in the following terms:
(i) The State shall consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in(supra) and take a decision Page 15 of 15 positively, within a period of four months, copy whereof shall be offered to the Respondents herein.
(ii) It shall be open for the writ petitioners to place additional materials, if any, before the authority(State).
(iii) In the event, the State takes any decision in the affirmative, as agreed, it shall be open to release the arrears without interest, within a period of 3(three) months from the date of such decision. The writ petitioners undertake not to claim any interest thereupon.
(iv) Liberty is reserved to the State to file fresh writ appeals, if so required and desired subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action.
(v) We clarify that save and except for what we have observed supra, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and more specifically the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.144 of 2014, titled as Smt. Sutapa Majumder vs. State of Tripura & Ors., WP(C) No.452 of 2014, titled as Sri Nikhil Chandra Das & Ors. vs. State of Tripura & Ors. and WP(C) No.74 of 2015, titled as Sri Haradhan Das & Ors. vs. State of Tripura & Ors.
(ARINDAM LODH, J) (SANJAY KAROL, CJ)