Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 402 (GAU)

Laxmi Mohan Chakma v. State of Tripura

2002-09-13

B.B.DEB

body2002
B.B. DEB, J.: Heard Mr. B. Das, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners and Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate being assisted by Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners while serving as Sub-Inspector of Police under the Govt. of Tripura, were sent for undergoing training in West Bengal in March, 1975. The State Govt. employees of Tripura observed continuous strike. To face the situation, the Government of Tripura decided to extend incentives to the employees who did not participate in the strike. Since the petitioners attended their duties in the Training Centre in West Bengal during the period of strike, they were granted two advance increments vide D.O. No. 580 dated 28.5.1975 by the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Govt. of Tripura. The petitioners enjoyed the benefit of "double advance increments" since from the time of granting the same, but subsequently the petitioners were served with notices bearing No. 19376-78/AUDIT(7)-SP(SB) POLICE-86 dated 24.6.1992 and No. 20761-62/AUDIT(7)-SP(SB)-POLICE-86 dated 8.7.1992 respectively asking them to show cause as to why the amount drawn by them as two advance increments, inadmissible to them, would not be recovered from their monthly salary by thirty installments. The petitioners furnished their replies contending, inter alia, that at the relevant time of strike, they attended their duties in the Police Training Centre, Barrackpur, West Bengal and as such they were allowed double advance increments according to law. After considering the same, the authority issued the final orders of recovery bearing No. 24088/AUDIT(7)-SP(SB)-PHQ-86 dated 6th August, 1992 and No. 25567-687 AUDIT(7)-SP(SB)-PHQ-86 dated 13th August 1992 respectively. The petitioners challenged those recovery orders. 3. The State respondents filed counter-affidavit contending, inter alia, that on mis­construction of the decision taken by the Council of Ministers, the authority inadvertently granted two advance increments to the petitioners and few others. Subsequently, the matter had been clarified by the Home Department, Govt. of Tripura in their letter dated 18th August, 1975. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the following points emerged for decision:- (i) Whether all the employees of the State of Tripura regardless of their posting at the relevant time had been entitled to be paid "double advance increments" pursuant to the decision taken by the Council of Ministers as circulated from Administrative Reforms Department vide No. 6(17)-ARD/75 dated 5th April, 1975 (Annexure-H to the writ petition)? (ii) Whether an employee temporarily deputed elsewhere in an office or institution not under the control of the State Government was also entitled to be paid the "double advance increments" only on the ground that he/she attended his/her duties thereat ? 5. Mr. B. Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that having examined the entitlement of the petitioners they were allowed the "double advance increments" benefit in 1975 and as such in issuing the impugned orders in 1992, the authority exposed nothing but arbitrariness and as such according to Mr. Das, learned Sr. counsel, the impugned orders suffer from unreasonableness, irrationality and arbitrariness. 6. On the other hand, Mr. U.B. Sana, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State respondents submits that inadvertently the double advance increments had been allowed to the petitioners contrary to the decision taken by the Council of Ministers and perhaps that was done due to misconstruction of the said order and as and when the said wrong was detected, the authority issued the impugned orders for recovery, of course after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 7. The decision taken by the Council of Ministers which allowed certain categories of employees to be paid the two advance increments, as has been issued, is reproduced below: "No.F.6(17)-ARD/75 Government of Tripura CIVIL SECRETARIAT ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT ********* Dated, Agartala, the 5th April, 1975. The following extract from the decision of the Council of Ministers is forwarded for information and taking necessary actions. Sd/- (C.R. Paul) Director of Vigilance Government of Tripura To All Departments/Heads of Deptts. EXTRACTS FROM THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS (i) Those employees who have attended their offices from the 19th to 22nd March, 1975 despite the strike call, either continuously or on any day between these dates will be given two advance increments with immediate effect in appreciation of their dedicated services and that these benefits should also be extended to those employees who have reached the maximum of the time scale subject to the above conditions. (ii) Those employees who have been appointed on the consolidated pay of Rs. 1507-per month will get Rs. 175/- per month with immediate effect and all Contingent employee will get Rupees one more per day than their existing rate of daily wages subject to the conditions as aforesaid. (ii) Those employees who have been appointed on the consolidated pay of Rs. 1507-per month will get Rs. 175/- per month with immediate effect and all Contingent employee will get Rupees one more per day than their existing rate of daily wages subject to the conditions as aforesaid. (iii) Those employees who will report for duty by the 25th of March, 1975 will be given leave as admissible to them. (iv) Those Contingent employees who absented themselves since 19th March but will report for duty by the 25th of March will be allowed to continue in service." From the first paragraph of the aforequoted decisions of the Council of Ministers, it reveals that the Government decided to extend incentives by granting two advance increments in favour of the employees "who have attended their offices from the 19th to 22nd March, 1975 despite the strike called either continuously or on any day between these dates". Admittedly, at that relevant time, covering the period maintained in the aforequoted order, the petitioners had never been attached with any office or institution under the disposal of or under the control of the State Government. At the relevant time, the petitioners had been serving as employees of the State Government, but the place of their posting was at Training Institute under the control and disposal of the Govt. of West Bengal. Regarding the attendance, absence, punctuality etc. of an employee deputed in the Police Training Centre at Barrackpur, West Bengal was under the control of the West Bengal Government. The Govt. of Tripura had/has no control over it and as such in my considered opinion, the decision taken by the Council of Ministers for extending incentives did not cover to those employees who had been posted/deployed/ attached to an institution, office etc. not under the control of the State Government, but the employees of the State Government serving outside the State of Tripura in an office or institution within the control of the State Government had been very much entitled to get the said benefit. 8. Mr. Saha, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate also referred a decision of this Court rendered on 13.6.2001 in W.P.(C)No. 168 of 2000 (Shri Bimal Kanti Bhattacharjee -Vs- The State of Tripura & Ors.). The fact of the said case of Bimal Kanti Bhattacharjee (supra) is same and identical to the present case. 8. Mr. Saha, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate also referred a decision of this Court rendered on 13.6.2001 in W.P.(C)No. 168 of 2000 (Shri Bimal Kanti Bhattacharjee -Vs- The State of Tripura & Ors.). The fact of the said case of Bimal Kanti Bhattacharjee (supra) is same and identical to the present case. The place of posting/detailment or attachment of the petitioner of that case was also in the same institution where the present petitioners were also deputed. In that case it has been decided by this court that the petitioner admittedly at the relevant time had not been under the control of the State of Tripura, rather he had been deputed in an institution under the control of West Bengal Government and the strike had never been organised there at all. This court on that score alone refused to grant any relief to the petitioner of Bimal Kanti Bhattacharjee (supra). 9. In view of the decision of the Council of Ministers as has been quoted in the preceding paragraph and having regard to the decision, rendered by this Court in Bimal Kanti Bhattacharjee (supra), I am of the considered opinion to hold that the petitioners had been allowed the two advance increments benefit on mis­construction of the decision taken by the Council of Ministers and while the same had been detected, the authority issued show cause and after considering the replies decided to recover the amount paid to the petitioners contrary to the decision quoted above and as such I find no merit in the present case. Any payment wrongly made by the Govt. could be recovered without fixing any additional liability and if the amount appears to be considerably big one, the recovery must be by easy instalments and that has also been done in the present case. The recovery was ordered, by the impugned orders, from the pay and allowances of the petitioners by 30 monthly instalments in the manner indicated in the impugned orders. 10. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. The stay order passed earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs.