Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1086 (GAU)

Biman Ranjan Dhar Choudhury v. State of Tripura

2006-12-07

MAIBAM B.K.SINGH, R.B.MISRA

body2006
JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.05.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ Petition/Civil Rule No. 529 of 1996 whereby the prayer of the writ-petitioner to quash the impugned order No. F. 2(5)-E/74(EC)(L-2), dated 24.05.1996 of Director of School Education, Government of Tripura to recover to two advance increments provided to him as a policy measure to call off the strike and to join duties during the period of mass strike of Tripura Government employees in the year 1974-75 was rejected. The said Writ Petition/Civil Rule was dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.05.2001 absence of the appellant. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we find that the writ petitioner/appellant is a Govt. servant serving in the State of Tripura and during the period of 1974-75 he was undergoing further study on being deputed by the State Government. From 19th March to 31st March, 1975 there was a general strike by the Govt. employees of Tripura and the State Govt. took a policy decision dated 05.04.1975 that the Govt. employees who would not join the strike and render their services during the period of strike by attending their duties would be allowed two advance increments in the existing scale of pay. According to the writ petitioner, the said advance increment was allowed to him also but subsequently the State Govt. passed the impugned order for recovery by way of deduction. Hence the Writ Petition/Civil Rule was filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein. 4. The case of the respondents-State in the writ petition is that the advance increments were allowed in order to obtain services of the employees at the relevant time so that the Govt. work does not suffer. As the writ petitioner was at the relevant time not attending his duties and was outside the State prosecuting his studies and as the strike was not extended outside the State of Tripura, he cannot be beneficiaries under the above policy decision. Since, due to inadvertence two advance increments were allowed to the writ petitioner, but subsequently when the matter was detected, recovery, by way of deduction was ordered. 5. Mr. Since, due to inadvertence two advance increments were allowed to the writ petitioner, but subsequently when the matter was detected, recovery, by way of deduction was ordered. 5. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Counsel for the State respondents submits that the matter in hand stand covered by the decision of this Court in C.R.242/95 and others disposed of on 30.08.1995. In those Civil Rules, the writ petitioners were similarly placed like the present writ petitioner and this Court relying on a decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the writ petitioners were not entitled to the said increments and as such, the recovery was held to be just and proper and accordingly the writ petitions were dismissed. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since the writ petitioner was out of State at relevant time pursuing his studies, therefore the policy decision dated 05.04.1975 of State Government is not applicable to the writ petitioner and payment of increments if maid to the writ petitioner under misconception cannot give legal right to the writ petitioner to retain it. We do not find any illegality and impropriety in the impugned order. 7. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.