Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 127 (TRI)

Anima Datta v. State of Tripura

2014-03-18

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- Both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposal on the submissions of learned counsel of both side since the fact of both the cases and the question of law raised are same and identical. Heard learned counsel Mr. R. Datta who has appeared on behalf of learned Sr. counsel Mr. A.K. Bhowmik for the petitioners in both the cases and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the State respondents in WP(C) No. 305 of 2005 and learned counsel Mr. J. Majudmer for the State respondents in WP(C) No. 306 of 2005. 2. At the inception of his submission, learned counsel Mr. Datta has placed on record a copy of the judgment dated 08.10.2013 passed by this Court in WP(C) 7 of 2006 and has submitted that the case of the petitioners of that case and the cases of the petitioners of the present cases are same and identical. It is submitted by Mr. Datta that in view of that judgment, the present writ petitions also may be disposed of directing the respondents to give the present petitioners same and similar relief. 3. Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Chakraborty and learned counsel Mr. Majumder appearing for the respondents, fairly submitted that substantially the cases of the present petitioners and the case of the petitioners of WP(C) No. 7 of 2006 are same and identical. It is further submitted that the petitioners of the present cases were not a party in Labour Case No. 1 of 1998 and so the petitioners of the present cases cannot be given the benefits towards consequential relief w.e.f. 1st April, 1979 so far it was allowed by the Labour Court in respect of the petitioners of the Labour Case. 4. Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. Chakraborty and learned counsel Mr. Majumder referring to a Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Jogendra Sreevastava reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 has submitted that consequential relief of payment of arrears will have to be restricted to a period of 3(three) years prior to the date of the original application. We may gainfully refer here para. 18 of the judgment which reads as follows:- 18. We cannot agree. v. Jogendra Sreevastava reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 has submitted that consequential relief of payment of arrears will have to be restricted to a period of 3(three) years prior to the date of the original application. We may gainfully refer here para. 18 of the judgment which reads as follows:- 18. We cannot agree. Where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or any allowance, the challenge is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Though the lesser payment may be a consequence of the error that was committed at the time of appointment, the claim for a higher allowance in accordance with the Rules (prospectively from the date of application) cannot be rejected merely because it arises from a wrong fixation made several years prior to the claim for correct payment. But in respect of grant of consequential relief of recovery of arrears for the past period, the principle relating to recurring and successive wrongs would apply. Therefore the consequential relief of payment of arrears will have to be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of the original application. (See M.R. Gupta v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 628 and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 .) 5. In view of the above decision of the Apex Court, the writ petitions may be allowed keeping in view of the judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) 7 of 2006 but the relief in respect of arrears should be restricted to the extent of 3(three) years prior to the date of original application. It may be mentioned here that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (supra) was not referred at the time of passing the judgment in WP(C) 7 of 2006. 6. Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment passed in WP(C) 7 of 2006 subject to the consequential relief in respect of payment of arrears restricted to a period of 3(three) years prior to the date of original application filed by the petitioners in the present cases. 7. 6. Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment passed in WP(C) 7 of 2006 subject to the consequential relief in respect of payment of arrears restricted to a period of 3(three) years prior to the date of original application filed by the petitioners in the present cases. 7. Both the writ petitions were filed in the month of August 2005 and so the petitioners of both the writ petitions shall be allowed consequential relief of payment of arrears restricted to a period of 3(three) years prior to the date of filing of those petitions. 8. A copy of the judgment dated 08.10.2013 of WP(C) No. 7 of 2006 shall form a part of the judgment and order of the present petitions subject to modifications in respect of consequential relief as indicated above. 9. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above and disposed of accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.