Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 302 (TRI)

Swapan Kumar Pal v. State of Tripura

2022-07-19

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for respondents-Tripura Jute Mills. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner has sought for necessary direction from the respondents for giving the petitioner benefit of pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996 like other similarly situated Officers of Tripura Jute Mills Limited ('TJML' in short) in terms of direction given by the Hon'ble High Court vide Judgment dated 08.04.2011, passed in W.A. No.74 of 2003 which has been subsequently affirmed by the Apex Court. 3. TJML is a Government of Tripura undertaking and in the 138th meeting of the BOD of the TJML held on 10.06.1998 vide resolution No.11, under the miscellaneous head, two posts of Accounts Officer were created. For filling up those two posts, it was also revealed that management trainee would be appointed through selection for one year so, that after completion of training, the posts of Accounts Officer would be duly filled up by the trainees. In pursuance of the resolution adopted at the 138 meeting of BOD, TJML, the Managing Director, TJML, vide Advertisement No.TJ/FI(49)/I/98-99 published in a local daily newspaper, on 29.07.1998 invited applications from the eligible candidates for appointment as Management Trainees. The petitioner offered his candidature for the post of Management Trainee, as the petitioner had the requisite education qualification & experience for the said post. Thereafter, through a fair & transparent selection process, the petitioner was selected for the post of Management Trainee (Account) of TJML, through the interview from those who have offered their candidature for the said post. 4. In pursuant to the aforesaid resolution adopted by the 138th Meeting of the BOD of TJML, through selection vide Memo, No.TJ/MD(3)/Vol-III/28, dated 10.04.2000, issued by the Managing Director, TJML, the petitioner through proper and fair selection was engaged as Management Trainee(Accounts). 5. In terms of the resolution of the 138th BOD meeting the Management Trainee (Accounts) would be required to successfully complete one-year training and thereafter he would be regularly appointed in the post of Accounts Officer. After successful completion of one year as a Management Trainee, the petitioner became entitled to be regularized in the post of Accounts Officer. 5. In terms of the resolution of the 138th BOD meeting the Management Trainee (Accounts) would be required to successfully complete one-year training and thereafter he would be regularly appointed in the post of Accounts Officer. After successful completion of one year as a Management Trainee, the petitioner became entitled to be regularized in the post of Accounts Officer. However, that was not done through the petitioner has been submitting one after another representation for regularization of his service in the post of Accounts Officer. Instead of regularising the service of the petitioner vide Memo dated, 04.10.2001, issued by the Managing Director, TJML, the engagement of the petitioner as Management Trainee(Accounts) was extended until further order. By memorandum No.TJ/SECY(1)/VOL-VI/303 dated 09.09.2004, issued by the Managing Director, TJML, the petitioner was designated as in-Charge Accounts Officer (Bill Drawing & Disbursement Selections, etc.), and the petitioner was directed to work as Officer-in-charge Bill Section, DDO Section, Audit Section, etc. Ultimately by Memorandum dated 25.09.2013 issued by MD, TJML, the service of the petitioner was regularized in the post of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 01.09.2013 in the pay scale of Rs.16,200/-31,320/- with other allowances and benefits applicable to TJML. The petitioner joined the post of Accounts Officer in pursuance of the Memorandum dated 25.09.2013. But the petitioner expressed his grievance for not regularising his service in the post of Accounts Officer as soon as he completed training. 6. The petitioner submitted many representations to the MD, TJML seeking his regularisation in the posts of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 11.04.2001. But the petitioner did not get any response. The petitioner also sought for benefit of the pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thereafter, as the representations failed to yield any response, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 04.02.2017 to the Managing Director, TJML. By the said legal notice, the petitioner demanded that he should be given the benefit of regularisation in the posts of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 11.04.2001 and other benefits in due compliance with the judgment and order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.A. No.74 of 2003 which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. As there was no response from the MD, TJML, to the legal notice dated 04.02.2017, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.266 of 2017 seeking relief. 7. As there was no response from the MD, TJML, to the legal notice dated 04.02.2017, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.266 of 2017 seeking relief. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 13.08.2018, disposed of the said writ petition and declined to grant the relief to the petitioner. Then, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.78/2018 against the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.266 of 2017. By order dated 20.02.2019, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said WA No.78/2018 in the following terms:- '(a) On a limited issue referred to supra, the petitioner shall approach the authorities. Upon receipt of any representation, the petitioner/appellant's case shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, within a period of five months thereafter. (b) Liberty reserved to the petitioner/appellant to approach the Court on the same and subsequent cause of action, if occasion arises subsequently.' 8. Thereafter, the petitioner in due compliance with the direction given by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2019, submitted a detailed representation dated 20.03.2019 to the Managing Director, TJML, seeking the benefit of pay revision of 2019 following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court passed in W.A. No.74 of 2003 dated 08.04.2011 as affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tripura Jute Mills Officers Association v. State of Tripura and other vide SLP No.20837/2011. The petitioner specifically sought for the benefit of revision of pay as per ROP Rules 1999 as given to other officers of TJML. 9. The Addl. Director, Industries and Commence, Government of Tripura, by letter, dated 06.06.2019 communicated to the Managing Director, TJML the view of the Law Department concerning the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking the benefit of the regular scale of pay of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 09.09.2004 and benefit of 4th Tripura Pay Commission effective from 01.01.1996 following the judgment passed on 08.04.2011 in W.A. No.74 of 2003. After incorporating the view of the Law Department in the aforesaid letter, the Addl. Director, Industries and Commerce, ask the MD, TJML to examine and scrutinize the limited issue of the benefit of pay revision to the petitioner based on the Judgment passed in W.A. No.74/2003, dated 08.04.2011, read with the Judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10411 of 2016. Director, Industries and Commerce, ask the MD, TJML to examine and scrutinize the limited issue of the benefit of pay revision to the petitioner based on the Judgment passed in W.A. No.74/2003, dated 08.04.2011, read with the Judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10411 of 2016. By the said letter, it was also pointed out, that, entitlement of the petitioner in regularized post shall be w.e.f. 01.09.2013. 10. The chairman cum Managing Director, TJML vide Memo dated, 27.06.2019, in pursuance to the letter, dated 25.06.2019, issued by the Addl. Director, Industries and Commerce, constituted a committee for assessing the monetary involvement for the proposed release of pay revision benefit including all other admissible benefits in favour of the petitioner-Swapan Kr. Paul, Accounts Officer, TJML w.e.f. 01.09.2013 at par with the employees of the other PSUs of the State Government in accordance with the Tripura Civil Services (Revision Pay) 6th Amendment Rules, 2012, (Revised Pay) 12th amendment Rules, 2015, Tripura State Pay Matrix 2017 and Tripura State Pay Matrix 2018. The committee so formed was directed to submit the report within 7 days. 11. The Addl. Director, Industries and Commerce vide letter, dated 26.08.2019, communicated to the Managing Director, TJML to inform him of the views of the Finance Department to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Judgment passed on 08.04.2011 in W.A. No.74/2003 on the ground that, the petitioner was never a member of the 'Tripura Jute Mills Officers Association'. 12. The petitioner submitted a reminder to his earlier representation dated 16.03.2019 to the Managing Director, TJML to give him the benefit of pay revision following the Judgment and order, dated 08.04.2011, passed by this Court in W.A. No.74/2003. 13. Under the circumstances stated above, the writ petitioner filed this instant writ petition and prayed for the following reliefs:- 'i. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions to like nature shall not be issued whereby to directing the Respondents to give the benefit of pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2996 and others benefits in due compliance with the Judgment and Order, dated, 08.04.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.A. No.74/2003, which has been confirmed by the Apex Court by Judgment dated 25.10.2016. ii. ii. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby quashing the letter, dated, 26.08.2019 issued by the Addl. Director (I&C), Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura. iii. Make the rules absolute. iv. Call for records. v. Pas any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered fit and proper.' 14. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pay revision w.e.f. 01.09.2013 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was regularized in the post of Accounts Officer. Only on the ground that the petitioner's name was not included in the list of members given by the Secretary TJML, the petitioner is suffering continuously as the petitioner is being denied the benefit of pay revision and the other benefits in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in W.A. No.74 of 2003 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Officers and Supervisors of the TJML have been given the benefit of pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and allowances in terms of the Officers and Supervisors of other PSUs and State Government. The petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment and on flimsy ground, the petitioner's name is not included. 15. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the State-respondents has opposed the said submission of the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the instant writ petition. Learned G.A. submits that the petitioner cannot take the advantage of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in W.A No.74 of 2003 read with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A. No.10411/16 since the petitioner is not a member of the TJML Officers Association and if at all he wants to take the advantage of the order, he has to implead the association and the members of the association as the party since they will be effected in the process of determining their services. Learned G.A further submits that order dated 26.08.2019 is an internal correspondence and the same is not marked to the petitioner herein. Learned G.A. also submits that the respondents are actively considering the cases wherever they need to be adjudicated. 16. Mr. Learned G.A further submits that order dated 26.08.2019 is an internal correspondence and the same is not marked to the petitioner herein. Learned G.A. also submits that the respondents are actively considering the cases wherever they need to be adjudicated. 16. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3 while adopting the arguments of the learned Government Advocate has prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 17. Heard both sides at length and perused the evidence on record. 18. In so far as the relief claimed by the petitioner is concerned, the 2(two) internal correspondences dated 25.06.2019 & 10.08.2019 between the Managing Director, Tripura Jute Mills Limited and Addl. Director Industries & Commerce and correspondence between The Director, Department of Industries & Commerce and Chairman-cum-Managing Director appears to be in favour of the petitioner. But the impugned order dated 26.08.2019 has not considered the case of the petitioner and has not given any cogent reasons. Hence, the impugned order dated 26.08.2019 is set aside and remanded back to the concerned respondents to look into the matter. In the light of the correspondences dated 25.06.2019 and 10.08.2019, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order and the same is to be communicated to the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 19. With the above observation and directions, this instant writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, stands closed.