Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 553 (GAU)

State of Tripura v. Biswapati Pal

2007-08-21

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA, MAIBAM B.K.SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners/respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the State-respondents against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 145/2006. 3. The writ petitioners are the retired Demonstrators of the particular College called M.B.B.B. College, Agartala. Their claim for granting corresponding revised scale of Rs. 8,000-13500/- in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- having been rejected by the State Government by the impugned notification dated 12.01.2006 (Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition), they approached this Court by filing the aforementioned writ petition. In fact, the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 606/2001, claiming the aforesaid revised pay scale. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 12.08.2005 with a direction to the State-respondents who are the appellants in this appeal to determine and grant corresponding revised pay scale to the petitioners/Demonstrators who are in the un-revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. Such determination was to be made within a period of three months. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court, the Government of Tripura in the Education (Higher) Department, under the signature of the Under Secretary, issued the impugned notification dated 12.01.2006, conveying the decision to grant revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-12300/- to the writ petitioners in their pre-revised scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. Being aggrieved by the decision, the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 145/2006, in which the impugned judgment and order has been passed, issuing direction to the respondents to grant the revised scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- to the writ petitioners. 5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that the pre-revised scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- was granted to the petitioners since they belong to Group-C cadre of the State services and that the petitioners cannot equate themselves with that of Lecturers and consequently, they also cannot claim the corresponding revised pay scale, granted to the Lecturers in the pre-revised pay scale. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that the pre-revised scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- was granted to the petitioners since they belong to Group-C cadre of the State services and that the petitioners cannot equate themselves with that of Lecturers and consequently, they also cannot claim the corresponding revised pay scale, granted to the Lecturers in the pre-revised pay scale. He submits that since in the earlier round of litigation, this Court left the matter to the discretion of the State Government to decide the same, having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances, the same very Court in the second round of litigation could not have allowed the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-to the petitioners. 6. Mr. Deb, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners/respondents, on the other hand, submits that the materials so overwhelming on record, warrant the granting of the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- to the petitioners. He submits that the learned Single Judge having passed the impugned judgment and order on the basis of the materials on record and there being no ambiguity in the matter, no interference is called for in respect of the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials on record. We have also gone through the records of the writ proceedings. In fact, in the earlier round of litigation which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 12.8.2005, there was enough indication that the petitioners were entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. In the said judgment, it was observed as follows: The settled and admitted position is that the petitioners-demonstrators who are in their personal un-revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- are legally entitled to the corresponding revised pay, but what shall be that corresponding revised pay is of course has to be decided by the State-respondents. They cannot wash their hands by merely saying that as the demonstrators are Group-C employees and the maximum pay scale of the Group-C employees is Rs. 5500-10700/-, they are not entitled to any revised scale of pay. Mr. Deb, learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the fact that other State Governments, particularly the Government of West Bengal, has already granted the revised pay scale of Rs. 5500-10700/-, they are not entitled to any revised scale of pay. Mr. Deb, learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the fact that other State Governments, particularly the Government of West Bengal, has already granted the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- to all the demonstrators working in the colleges. 8. In paragraph-5 of the earlier judgment, it was also observed that once the State Government granted the un-revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- which was equivalent to the pay scale of the Lecturers with a specific stipulation that such pay scale would be personal to the Demonstrators and it would not change their rank, status and duties, the State Government cannot deny them the corresponding revised pay scale on the ground that they are Group-C employees under the State Government. It was further observed that the granting of pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- which was equivalent to Lecturers/Asstt. Professors by the State-respondents has taken away the very basis of resisting the claim of the petitioners. It was also observed that the State-respondents cannot in any way deny the corresponding revised pay scale to the petitioners-Demonstrators by raising an obsolete plea that they belong to Group-C cadre. 9. Further observation made on the basis of the materials on record in the earlier judgment was that the UGC has made it clear that the State Government may grant a different scale of pay but that shall not in any way exceed the corresponding revised pay scale recommended by the UGC and if any other pay scale is considered to be appropriate by the State Government for the Demonstrators, that proposal has to be submitted to the Central Government for approval. Considering the matter in its entirety, the learned Single Judge further observed that the petitioners are entitled to the corresponding revised pay scale in the personal pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. 10. After making the aforesaid observations on the basis of the materials on record, including the relevant circulars issued by the UGC, the learned Single Judge remanded the matter back to the State Government for a fresh decision. The decision has been so taken by the State Government by the impugned notification dated 12.01.2006, which is quoted below: NOTIFICATION The Governor of Tripura has been pleased to extend the State Govt. revised pay scale of Rs. The decision has been so taken by the State Government by the impugned notification dated 12.01.2006, which is quoted below: NOTIFICATION The Governor of Tripura has been pleased to extend the State Govt. revised pay scale of Rs. 6,500-12,300/- to Sri Biswapati Paul, Sri Sankar Lal Sinha & Sri Jatish Chandra Acharjee, Demonstrator (i.e. the writ petitioners bearing case No. 606 of 2001) being personal scale with effect from 01.01.1996 (notionally upto 30.09.1998 and cash benefit from 01.10.1998) as per ROP Rule. 1999. This is issued as per concurrence of the Finance Department communicated vide U.O. No. 90/FIN (PC)/05 dated 14.12.05 and U.O. No. 2/FIN(PC)/05 dated 05.01.06. By order of the Governor, Sd/- (R. Debbarma) Under Secretary to the Government of Trupura. 11. By Annexure-P/1 letter dated 08.10.1992 annexed to the writ petition, it was inter alia, provided that those Demonstrators/Tutors who have to stay in the elongated scale of Rs. 1740-3000/-, and those who have reached the scale of Rs. 2700/- basic pay in the present scale, may be granted on crossing E.B., a personal pay of Rs. 2200-4000/- equivalent to that of Lecturers without any change in their designation and duties. 12. It is on the above basis, the petitioners were put to the then revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- and they continued to en joy the same. The UGC while prescribing the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 8000-13 500/- in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 2200- 4000/- also indicated by Annexure-P/8 letter dated 27.7.1998 annexed to the rejoinder- affidavit to the writ petition, that in case of any deviation sought to be made by the State Government, the particular scheme should be furnished to the Government of India for its approval. Thus, although some liberty was granted to the State Government to deviate from the revised pay scale as granted by the UGC, such deviations can be made with specific approval of the Central Government. It is also pertinent to be mention here that 80 percent of the expenditure incurred towards granting of revised pay scale is to be borne by the Central Government for which the fund was also provided for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000. It is on this ground, Mr. It is also pertinent to be mention here that 80 percent of the expenditure incurred towards granting of revised pay scale is to be borne by the Central Government for which the fund was also provided for the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.2000. It is on this ground, Mr. Deb, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents submits that the State Government after utilizing the fund for the period cannot now turn round the same disentitling the petitioners from the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-, taking a different stand solely on the ground that the petitioners belong to the Group-C cadre. 13. The letter dated 21.7.1999 addressed to the Government of Tripura in the Education Department, categorically stated that the Demonstrators/Tutors who will reach or would have reached a stage of Rs. 8,300/- in the revised scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- or complete 16 years service in the scale of Demonstrators whichever is later would be granted a personal pay of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- equivalent to that of Lecturers, without assigning any change in their designation and duties. It was further provided that the revised pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- may be provided w.e.f. 1.1.1996 to those Demonstrators/Tutors who are drawing the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. This letter was issued in view with the earlier letter dated 8.10.1992, about which a mention has been made above and by which the Demonstrators/Tutors were given the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. 14. From the materials available on record, what is gathered is that the petitioners are entitled to be fitted in the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. However, in terms of the letter dated 27.7.1999, the State Government was empowered to introduce scale of pay, different from those mentioned in the UGC scale. But such deviation cannot be at the sweet will of the State Government, and will have to be as per the procedure laid down in the letter itself. As per the said procedure, in all such cases of introduction of scales of pay, different from those mentioned in the pay scale recommended by the UGC, the Scheme should be furnished to the Central Government for its approval. The learned Addl. Govt. As per the said procedure, in all such cases of introduction of scales of pay, different from those mentioned in the pay scale recommended by the UGC, the Scheme should be furnished to the Central Government for its approval. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate could not bring to the notice of this Court, about any steps taken by the State Government towards furnishing the said Scheme to the Government of India and/or obtaining the necessary approval from the Central Government. 15. In any case, as has been observed above, the permissible deviation cannot be an empty formality, more so, when there is enough indication in the UGC recommendation that the Demonstrators/Tutors are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. The plea taken by the State Government is that since the petitioners are Group-C employees, they are not entitled to be treated at par with the Lecturers, also advanced by the State-respondents in the earlier round of litigation did not find favour of this Court and stood rejected. On such rejection, the State-respondents did not agitate the matter any further. Even otherwise also, the UGC was not oblivious of the situation in prescribing that the Demonstrators/Tutors should be granted the revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- without any functional change in the status and duties of the Demonstrators/Tutors. 16. Mr. Deb, learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners/respondents has additionally submitted that the ROP Rules, 1999 applicable to the State Government employees is not applicable to the appellants herein. In this connection, he has referred to Rule 2 of the Rules dealing with the "Applicability" of the Rules. Rule 2(ii)(f) prescribes that the Tripura Revision of Pay Rules, 1999 does not apply to the persons drawing pay in the UGC/AICTE pay scales. Referring to the Rules, Mr. Deb submits that the scale of pay which is sought to be given to the writ petitioners cannot be granted on the basis of the ROP Rules, 1999 since the same is not applicable to the case of the petitioners-Demonstrators. Above aspect of the matter need not detain us in view of our findings that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 145/2006. Above aspect of the matter need not detain us in view of our findings that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 145/2006. Suffice it to say that in the judgment, the learned Single Judge has elaborately dealt with the entire pros and cons of the matter with reference to the earlier judgment, about which mention has been made above. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal requiring its admission. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.