Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 90 (TRI)

Sanjit Debbarma and Other v. State of Tripura

2014-02-15

U.B.SAHA

body2014
JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J.:- The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who were discharging their duties at the time of filing of the writ petition as Sub-Jailors, for granting them pay benefits in strict conformity with the suggestion made by the Mullah Commission, which is equivalent to the holders of the posts as Sub-Inspectors in the Police Department. 2. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the writ petitioners joined to the post of Sub-Jailors on different dates and have been serving in the said grade of Jailor for a quite substantial period without any promotion. It is stated that the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Jail Department in response to a former message on the subject pertaining to introduction of revised Prison Reforms and Realities in Indian Prisons, made a communication to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi dated 14.02.1984 (Annexure-P-1 to the writ petition), wherein no uncertain terms, the acceptance of the recommendations insofar as it relates to the development of prison personnel (as contained in the Mulla Commission's report) was expressed. It is further stated that by the said communication, all acceptances in response to the recommendations made by the Mulla Commission, the recommended salary and allowances, and the equivalence of rank suggested by the Mulla Commission was accepted by the said authority. It is also stated that in spite of the said recommendation and acceptance thereof by the State Government, the benefits flowing from the said recommendation were not extended to the writ petitioners. The said non-grant of benefits was brought to the notice of the expert body, viz. Anomaly Committee, which, in turn, deprecated the same and suggested certain pay scales in favour of the persons of the Jail Department (Annexure-P-2 to the writ petition). Being aggrieved, the petitioners prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the State-respondents to allow them the initial pay scale and graded pay scale, after fixing their pay scale at par with the corresponding/equivalent holders of posts in the Police Department as stated in the Mulla Commission's Report with effect from the respective dates of joining to the posts by them. 4. 4. The State-respondents though denied the claim of the petitioners in their counter affidavit, but in paragraph-19 it is contended that the Anomaly Committee has recommended the pay scale of Rs. 1,700-3,980/- for the post of Deputy Jailor and pay scale of Rs. 2,000-4,410/- for the post of Jailor and the same was not accepted by the Government. In paragraph-22 of the said counter affidavit it is also stated that the recommendation of the Mulla Commission was also not accepted by the State Government and thus the pay scale allowed to the writ petitioners was in accordance with the pay scale prescribed in the ROP Rules, 1988. 5. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a similar nature of case being W.P.(C) No. 285 of 2007 has already been disposed of by this Court directing the State respondents to place the grievance of those writ petitioners before the Anomaly Committee/Review Committee, which shall consider the grievance of the petitioners and thereafter the State respondents would pass necessary orders. In the instant case also a similar order can be passed taking note of the fact that in this case the Anomaly Committee constituted by the State respondents had already considered the grievance of the petitioners and as prescribed scale of pay of Rs. 1,450-3,710/- for the post of Sub-Jailor and the scale of pay of Rs. 2,000-4,410/- for the Jailor/Probation Placement Officer taking note of the corresponding post of the Police Department. Thus, it would be proper on the part of the State respondents also to reconsider the grievance of the petitioners. 6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Government Advocate has placed one judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in C.R. No. 647 of 1997, wherein the learned Single Judge rejected a similar nature of prayer made by Smti. Bella Datta, a woman Sub-Jailor. 7. Fixation of pay is the function of the expert body, constituted by the employer and not the job of the Court. But, if a case of discrimination is made out, in that case obviously the High Court has the power even to direct an employer to remove the discrimination. 8. After going through the averments made in the respective pleadings of the parties, it appears that in the case of Smti. But, if a case of discrimination is made out, in that case obviously the High Court has the power even to direct an employer to remove the discrimination. 8. After going through the averments made in the respective pleadings of the parties, it appears that in the case of Smti. Bella Datta, the Court has not taken into consideration either recommendation of the Mulla Commission or recommendation of the Anomaly Committee, rather it was noted that "the pleadings disclosed that apart from the aforesaid claim, i.e., except the suggestion rendered by the Jail Reform Committee, no other basis of claim has been made in this writ petition for getting the scale of pay by a female Sub-Jailor like the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Home Department of the Government of Tripura. 9. There is no doubt that the recommendation of the Anomaly Committee or Mulla Commission is not binding on the State Government. But when the State Government has decided not to accept the said recommendation, then they should have given some reasons. However, in the instant case, from Annexure-P-2 of the writ petition it appears that the Anomaly Committee constituted by the State respondents has already considered the pay scale of the Sub-Jailor and the Sub-Inspector of Police and noted that after introduction of ROP Rules, 1988, the scales of pay of both the posts of Sub-Jailor and Sub-Inspector of Police were made equal and prior to that, the scales of pay of Sub-Inspector of Police was higher and after the police movement in 1991, the scales of pay of Sub-Inspector of Police was again modified to a higher scale of pay again. 10. However, as in a similar matter, i.e. W.P. (C) No. 285 of 2007 (Sri Bipad Bhanjan Banik & ors. V. The State of Tripura & ors.), this Court has directed the State respondents for placing the grievance of those petitioners before the Anomaly Committee/Review Committee within a particular period, thus it would be proper for this Court to pass a similar order in the instant case. V. The State of Tripura & ors.), this Court has directed the State respondents for placing the grievance of those petitioners before the Anomaly Committee/Review Committee within a particular period, thus it would be proper for this Court to pass a similar order in the instant case. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a simple direction that the grievance of the petitioners made in the writ petition shall be again considered by the respondents and place the same before the Anomaly Committee/Review Committee within a period of one month from today and the Anomaly Committee/Review Committee, constituted by the Government, shall again consider the grievance of the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of the same from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by a reasoned order. If no Anomaly Committee/Review Committee is in existence at present, then the respondents shall constitute an Anomaly Committee/Review Committee by the experts for the instant case so that the grievance of the petitioners can be sorted out as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties. No order as to costs. 11. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate for onward transmission.