Tripura High Court
Mr. C.S. Sinha vs Mr. D. Bhattacharya on 6 December, 2019
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.1170 of 2019
WP(C) No.1171 of 2019
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate,
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
ORDER
06/12/2019 It is an undisputed position that issues raised in the petitions are covered by a decision of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 26.04.2017 in case of Sri Monorajan Naha Versus State of Tripura and others in writ petition No.255 of 2014 and connected petition.
Learned Government Advocate pointed out that the said decision of this Court in case of Sri Monorajan Naha Versus State of Tripura and others was challenged before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.44 of 2017 and connected appeal which was decided on 05.03.2019 directing the Government to reconsider the issue. Thereupon the Government has passed a fresh order dated 23.09.2019 reiterating its original stand and has come to a conclusion that the petitioners therein are not entitled to the higher pay scale as compared to the Pharmacist (non-diploma). In other words, the State Government is not agreeable to accept the decision of the learned Single Judge.
Page 2 of 3
In this context we may record following observations made by the Division Bench in the said appeals dated 05.03.2019 which reads as under :
"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.
(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."
Thus after the said decision, since the State Government is not agreeable to accept the view of the learned Single Judge, the Government would have to file fresh set of letter patent appeals and cannot expect the original petitioners of those cases or for that matter the petitioners of this petition to challenge the fresh decision of the Government. The Division Bench had not decided the appeals of the Government on merits and had impliedly required the Government to file fresh set of appeals if the suggestion of the Court to accept the decision of the learned Page 3 of 3 Single Judge without contest was not accepted. As a Single Judge, I am bound by the decision of coordinate bench.
Under the circumstances, let the petitions be listed on 20.12.2019. In the meantime, if the Government prefers a letter patent appeals against the already decided cases, this petition would be tagged along with such appeals. If no such appeals are filed, I may proceed to hear the present petition independently.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ.
Dipesh