Tripura High Court
Sri Tarun Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 22 November, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.436/2015
Sri Tarun Debbarma,
S/o Sri Sushil Debbarma, U D Clerk,
Office of the Superintendent of Police,
Khowai District, Tripura.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Tripura,
P.O - New Secretariat, Pin - 799010, Agartala,
West Tripura.
2. The Director General of Police,
Police Head Quarter, P.O : Agartala,
Pin - 799001, West Tripura.
3. The Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of Tripura, P.O - New Secretariat,
Pin - 799010, Agartala, West Tripura.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Khowai Tripura District, P.O : Khowai.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C S Sinha, Advocate, Ms. S Chisim, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D Sharma, Addl. G.A. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 22/11/2018 The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) Admit the Writ Petition;
(b) Call for the records;
(c) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari calling
upon the respondents to show cause as to why the office order dated 15-10-2014 fixing the pay Page 2 of 4 of the petitioner in the post of UDC on 18-09- 2012 at Rs.8,990/- should not be declared bad in law and contrary to Rule 12(i) of ROP‟2009 and quashed so far as the petitioner‟s case is concerned.
(d) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why order dated 27-09-2014 should not be declared bad in law and quashed so far as the petitioner‟s case is concerned.
(e) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the fixation of pay of the petitioner on the date of promotion to the post of UDC, that is on 18-09- 2012 should not be at Rs.9,920/- as per Rule- 12(i) of the ROP‟2009.
(f) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why memorandum No.F.6(1)-FIN(PC)/2008 dated 21- 6-2013 should not be declared unreasonable, unjustified and illegal, so far as non consideration of provision of „step up‟ laid down in Rule 12(i) of ROP‟2009 in fixation of pay in the promotion post and accordingly the respondents get arbitrary exercise of power in fixing pay of the petitioner on his promotion to UDC, at Rs.9,190/- instead of Rs.9920/-.
(g) Interim relief would be sought for as and when situation arises.
(h) Pass any other relief(s) which Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in this case."
Page 3 of 4After the matter was heard for some time, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present petition reserving liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievances.
He further states that the writ petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the appropriate authority to consider and decide the petitioner‟s representation expeditiously in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.
As such, petition is disposed of in the following mutually agreed terms:
(1) Petitioner‟s representation shall be considered by the appropriate authority and decided expeditiously in accordance with law and positively within a period of two months from today.
(2) If so required and desired, it shall be open to the writ petitioner to place additional materials in support of earlier representation, if any.
(3) Additionally, if so desired, petitioner may also request for affording opportunity of hearing. (4) The authority shall positively pass the order in the aforesaid terms, by assigning reasons and copy thereof shall also be supplied to the writ petitioner. (5) Liberty is reserved to the writ petitioner to independently approach the Court for assailing the order, if Page 4 of 4 so required and desired on the same and subsequent cause of action, in accordance with law.
(6) All issues are left open.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (SANJAY KAROL), CJ Sukhendu