Anju Sutradhar vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is that the petitioner had been appointed as the staff nurse, in pursuance to the memorandum under No.F.2(1-13)-MS/Estt/89 dated 14.01.1986 in the scale of pay of Rs.560-1300/- (un-revised). The petitioner was appointed by the memorandum under No.F.2(1-13)-MS/Estt/83 dated 29.03.1986 in the said post and scale. Initially, the appointment was for one year and later on, by the subsequent memorandum dated 17.08.1987, the engagement was further extended for one year.

According to the petitioner, she has completed the B.Sc. (Nursing) in the Regional College of Nursing, Guwahati by taking the study leave. In the month of May, 1995, she was awarded the degree of B.Sc. (Nursing). The petitioner was registered with the Tripura Nursing Council, vide the certificate of registration dated 09.04.1996. On her completion of ten years of service, she was moved to the next scale of pay of Rs.1,700-3,980/- with effect from 01.04.1996. Incidentally, the petitioner had come across the memorandum bearing No.F.2(1-13)-MS/ESTT/94 dated 26.03.1998, whereby ten persons were appointed to the post of Staff Nurse in the pay scale of Rs.1,450-3,710/- [Annexure-8 to the writ petition]. Further, the petitioner came to know constructively on reading the order dated 26.03.1998 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition] that those persons who were appointed by the order dated 17.08.1987 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] were given two advance increments in the said scale of pay of Rs.1,450-3,710/-. But, when the petitioner was recruited by the order dated 29.03.1986, no such increment was given to the petitioner.

In this perspective, the petitioner has urged this court to direct the respondents to release two advance increments in her favour treating her appointment as equal to those ten appointees who were appointed by the order dated 26.03.1998 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition].

Mr. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been arbitrarily deprived of the said benefit and accordingly, the petitioner deserves to get the said benefit retrospectively from the date of her appointment.

In order to repel the said submission, Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has referred to this court, the recruitment rules for the post of staff nurse under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura whereby the following provisions [Rule 10] have been made :

"a) Persons possessing basic/post basic degree in nursing profession shall be allowed 2(two) advance increments in initial recruitment.

b) Persons possessing post basic diploma in nursing profession shall be allowed 1(one) advance increment in initial recruitment."

According to Mr. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. this is the reason why those ten appointees were given two advance increments as were possessing basic/post basic degree in nursing. Mr. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. has further submitted that at the time of initial recruitment, the petitioner did not have the degree in nursing but she was possessing the basic diploma in nursing and accordingly, she was only entitled to one advance increment.

This court has noticed Para 12 of the reply filed by the respondents where the respondents have unequivocally admitted that the petitioner did possess the diploma qualification, not the basic/post-basic degree.

At this stage, Mr. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from the records it will reveal that even the petitioner did not get one advance increment during her initial recruitment.

Having faced with such rival contentions, this court is of the view that there is no infirmity in granting two advance increments in favour of ten appointees who were appointed by the order dated 26.03.1998 [Annexure 8 to the writ petition], as all of them were indisputably having the degree in nursing at the time of their initial recruitment. Since, the petitioner possessed the basic diploma in nursing at the time of initial recruitment, the petitioner was definitely entitled to get one advance increment.

Mr. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that there is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner did not get one advance increment at the initial recruitment for her having the diploma in nursing.

Even without ascertaining the fact, this court may dispose of the writ petition with the following directions on the respondents. If it is found from the records that one advance was not released during the initial recruitment, the petitioner shall be favoured with release of one advance increment from the date of her appointment in the scale what she was enjoying. In that event, the arrears that would accrue shall also be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order.

Consequential orders be issued accordingly.

There shall be no order as to costs.