Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Smt. Biswa Kanya Debbarma on 10 August, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 TRI 439
Bench: Akil Kureshi, S G Chattopadhyay
Page - 1 of 9
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.125/2021,
WA No.127/2021 and WA No.139/2021
A) WA No.125/2021 :
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Department of Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura,
Khejur Bagan, P.O. Agartala, District - Tripura West.
2. Director of Handloom, Handicrafts & Sericulture,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura, Government of Tripura.
.............. Appellant(s).
Vs.
Smt. Biswa Kanya Debbarma
wife of Sri Malin Debbarma, resident of Quarters Type III, Quarter No. 3
Jail Road, P.O. Dharmanagar, P.S. Dharmanagar, District - North Tripura.
.............. Respondent(s).
B) WA No.127/2021 :
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Department of Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura,
Khejur Bagan, P.O. Agartala, District - Tripura West.
2. Director of Handloom, Handicrafts & Sericulture,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura, Government of Tripura.
.............. Appellant(s).
Vs.
Sri Sanjib Debbarma
S/o. Lt. Budhu Debbarma, resident of Vill. Dina Nat Chowdhury Para,
P.O : Brindranagar, P.S. Jirania, Agartala, District - West Tripura.
.............. Respondent(s).
Page - 2 of 9
C) WA No.139/2021 :
1. The State of Tripura
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura,
Khejur Bagan, P.O. Agartala, District - Tripura West.
2. Director of Handloom
Handicrafts and Sericulture, Indranagar, Agartala,
West Tripura, Government of Tripura
.............. Appellant(s).
Vs.
Smt. Sukla Debbarma,
W/O. Sri Dhirendra Debbarma, resident of Village - Roshiram Sipahi Para
P.O. Noabadi, P.S. Jirania, District - West Tripura.
.............. Respondent(s).
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Debalaya Bhattcharya, GA,
Mr. S Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. S Deb(Gupta), Advocate.
Date of hearing : 19th July, 2021.
Date of judgment : 10th August, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
JUDGMENT
(Akil Kureshi, CJ).
These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment.
Page - 3 of 9 [2] Appeals are filed by the State Government to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 25th July 2019, in WP(C) No.520/2019 and connected petitions. The original petitioners had approached the High Court seeking their placement in the pay scale of Rs.240-440/-(pre-revised) with corresponding fitment in revised scales from time to time from their initial appointments with all consequential benefits. All the petitioners were engaged under the Director of Handloom Handicrafts and Sericulture (DHHS), Government of Tripura, as Junior Production Assistants or posts carrying different nomenclature but carrying the same pay scales. The grievance of the petitioners was that they were granted scales of pay under revised pay rules corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs.170-210/- instead of Rs.240-440/-. [3] This litigation has long history and starts from an industrial dispute registered as Labour Case No.1/1998 in case of Sri Chandan alias Chandanmoy Dasgupta and Ors. Vs. State of Tripura before the Industrial Tribunal, Agartala. The reference was made by the Government of Tripura pursuant to an order passed by the Gauhati High Court on the question whether the workmen who were Industrial Training Institute(ITI) trained industrial workers of Government Production Unit, Industrial Estate, Arundhutinagar, were entitled to draw their wages in the scale of pay of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f 1st April, 1979. The case of the workmen in the Page - 4 of 9 said labour dispute was that they all were holding ITI training certificates from recognised institutions. Workmen with similar educational qualifications and duties and responsibilities in other departments of the Government were granted the scale of pay of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f 1st April 1979 but the workmen before the Industrial Tribunal were granted scale of pay of Rs.170-210/- and in the some cases, it was Rs.196-255/-. These workmen had also pointed that some of the workmen in their own department were also granted the pay scale of Rs.240-440/- and they were discriminated in terms of grant of proper pay scale. [4] The Labour Court disposed of the reference by award dated 14th December 2000 holding that the concerned workmen were entitled to draw their pay and allowances in the scale of pay of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f. 1st April 1979 on the principle of pay parity with workmen of other departments.
[5] The Government of Tripura challenged the said award of the Labour Court. The writ petition[W.P(C) No.546/2001] was dismissed by a judgment dated 15th November, 2002. Special Leave Petition filed by the State Government before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. Eventually, the Government also passed order, on 17th March 2005, implementing the award of Industrial Tribunal and the industrial workers Page - 5 of 9 who were parties in the said dispute were granted the scale of pay of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f 1st April 1979.
[6] Several other workmen who were similarly situated but who were not granted the benefit of higher pay scale as per the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, filed separate petitions [WP(C) No.306/2005 and connected petitions] before the High Court. All these petitions were allowed and the Government was directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.240-440/- from 1st April 1979 to these workmen also. [7] The present petitioners have also raised the same dispute. Only difference of note in their cases is that all of them were engaged after 1st April 1979. It is not in dispute that on whichever date post 1st April 1979 when they were engaged, they were granted the scale of pay which was existing as per the prevailing pay rules corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.170-210/-. The learned Single Judge did not find this a significant difference and was of the view that these petitioners also must get the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.240-440/-(pre-revised) as fitted in the revised pay rules. Unfortunately, despite sufficient opportunities, the Government had not filed a reply and the petition was heard without affidavit-in-reply of the Government. However, during oral arguments, this distinction was sought to be made on behalf of the Government which Page - 6 of 9 according to the State would disentitle the petitioners from claiming parity in line with the judgment in case of Sri Chandan alias Chandanmoy Dasgupta(supra). The learned Single Judge dealt with this issue in the impugned judgment as under :
"15. Having observed thus and on appreciation of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits emanating from the revised scale of pay of Rs.240-440/- in the grade of Industrial Worker (Grade-IV), Skilled Worker(weaving), Junior Production Assistant as re-designated or in the grade of the other re-designated post of Senior Industrial Worker. The pay scale of Rs.240-440/- or its revised scales as effected by the subsequent revision of pay from and after 01.04.1979 along with their appropriate grade scale (vide Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 ) or the benefit under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) vide Rule 10 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 and Assured Career Progression (ACP) vide Rule 10 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 or their subsequent revision or up-gradation of pay scale be entitled to the petitioners or their predecessors irrespective of their date of appointment."
While, therefore, directing the respondents to give the benefit of higher pay scale to the petitioners from the date of their engagements, in view of long delay in approaching the Court, the arrears would be paid only from the date 3 years prior to the filing the petitions.
Page - 7 of 9 [8] Learned Government Advocate, Mr. Debalaya Bhattachariya, vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that there was a clear and significant difference in facts between the case of the present petitioners and in case of Sri Chandan alias Chandanmoy Dasgupta(supra). He submitted that the Industrial Tribunal's award concerned workmen who were engaged prior to 1st April 1979. The petitioners were engaged after 1st April 1979 when fresh pay rules were introduced and in which two different categories of industrial workers were envisaged.
[9] On the other hand, learned counsel Mrs. S Deb(Gupta) submitted that the distinction sought to be drawn by the Government is not material. The ratio of the decision in case of Sri Chandan alias Chandanmoy Dasgupta(supra) would apply to the petitioners also. They have been denied the benefit of higher pay scale. She submitted that in number of other cases, such a situation had arisen. She gave example of a judgment, dated 14th March 2017, passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.782/2016 and connected petitions, in case of Sri Sunil Chandra Nama and Ors. Vs. State of Tripura, in this regard. She pointed out that all the petitioners therein were engaged after 1 st April 1979 and the learned Single Judge had directed that they shall get the benefit of pre- revised scale of Rs.240-440/- with corresponding fitment in the revised Page - 8 of 9 scales from the date of appointment. This judgement has been implanted by the government.
[10] Facts are seriously not in dispute. In case of Sri Chandan alias Chandanmoy Dasgupta (supra), the industrial workers had succeeded in their claim for higher pay scale at par with similarly situated workers of other departments and in some cases, their own department. After testing the validity of the award right up to Supreme Court, the Government had eventually passed order in May, 2005 implementing the award. On the basis of this award as confirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court, number of other workers who were entitled to the said same benefit had approached the High Court from time to time and they were also granted the benefit of higher pay scales.
Under the circumstances, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in giving similar treatment to these petitioners also.
[11] The contention of the Government that in case of workers who were engaged after 1st April 1979 the situation had materially changed, appears to be raised for the first time in the present group of cases. Mrs. Deb(Gupta) had pointed out that in case of Sri Sunil Chandra Nama and others, there were as many as 18 petitioners involved, all were engaged Page - 9 of 9 after 1st April, 1979. In their cases, the learned Single Judge, as noted, by a judgment dated 14th March 2017 had allowed the benefit of higher pay scale while limiting the arrears of salary on such basis to 3 years preceding the date of filing of the petitions. Mrs. Deb(Gupta) had also stated under instructions that this judgment was accepted by the Government without challenge. That being the position, the present petitioners, in any case, cannot be deprived of pay parity when under identical situation the Government had accepted the directions for grant of higher pay scale to similarly situated workers. As noted, the learned Single Judge has restricted the benefit of arrears of salary to 3 years prior to filing of the petitions, in view of long delay in approaching the Court, while turning down the contention of the Government that the petitions should be dismissed on ground of delay and laches by applying the principle that question of correct pay fixation is a recurring cause. [12] In the result, appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ ) Sukehendu