Debasish Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] The petitioner has prayed for a direction for being placed in the scale of pay of `7450-13000/- (pre-revised) upon completion of 10 years of service in the grade of Sub-Inspector of Police.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Tripura police service on 21.07.2006. At the time of his appointment, Tripura Civil Services(Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (ROP 2009, for short) had not yet been framed. He was, therefore, placed in the pre-revised scale of `5000-10300/-. The Government of Tripura promulgated the Tripura State Civil Services(Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 which was given effect from 01.01.2006. The pre-revised scale of Rs.5000-10300/- was placed in the Pay Band of Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-. In the pre-revised position next higher scale after Rs.5000-10300/-was of Rs.5500-10700/- which upon implementation of the ROP 2009 was granted the scale of Rs.9570-30000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2600/-.

[3] Rule-10 ROP 2009 prescribed grant of up-gradation upon completion of 10 years of regular service by an employee without promotion. Such financial upgradation was granted to the petitioner as per Rule-10 of ROP 2009. Upon completion of 10 years of service on 21.07.2016 he would be placed in the Pay Band of Rs.9570-30000/- which corresponded to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5500-10700/-. His demand however is that he should have been fitted against the revised Pay Band corresponding to pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7450-13000/-. Under ROP Rules, 2009 corresponding Pay Band to the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-13000/- was Rs.9570-30000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.3500/-.

[4] For this demand the petitioner placed heavy reliance on certain previous decisions of this Court concerning the Sub-Inspectors of Police of State of Tripura. First such issue came up before Gauhati High Court in form of Second Appeal 44/2003 and connected Appeals. This appeal was filed by the State of Tripura challenging judgments of the Civil Court. Cross Appeals were filed by the plaintiffs-employees. While dismissing the State appeal and allowing the Appeal of the plaintiffs the learned Single Judge in a judgment dated 10.01.2006 had observed as under :

"Thus, from the above, it will be seen that a revised scale may be admissible in reference to the next promotion post, but not beyond that. The Trial Court broadly agreeing with the plea of the plaintiffs for their entitlement to the revised pay scale of Rs.7450-13,000 denied the same to them on the ground that same is the revised scale of the promotion post of Inspector of Police, unmindful of the fact that the plaintiffs were already in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1700-3980/-, which was the pre-revised scale of Inspector of Police.

If the plaintiffs had been put to the pre-revised scale of Rs.1700-3980/-, I see no reason as to why they shall not be entitled to the revised scale of the pre-revised scale i.e. Rs.7450-13,000/-. The denial of the benefit on ground of there being bar under Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999, which deals with CAS will be opposed to the actual position which has emerged from the discussion made above. It is in this context, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants argued that the gradation scale was not given to the plaintiffs as career advancement, but was made applicable to the plaintiffs as per RP Rules of 1988 and the three notifications referred to above. Clause iii of Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999 on which the first Appellate Court placed reliance is not on the issue. The said clause is only in respect of debarment of further advancement after availing prescribed numbers of scale advancement by way of promotion or gradation, but not on the issue of entitlement to the corresponding revised scale of a pre-revised scale, which in the instant case is Rs.7450-13,000/- as against the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1700-3980/."

[5] Similar issue came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.259 of 2006 which was disposed of by a judgment dated 28.05.2015 making following observations :

"The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1450-3710/- w.e.f. 02.12.1987 and he was also entitled to the pay scale of Rs.7450- 13000/-w.e.f. 02.12.1997 and further graded scale of Rs.10000-15100/- w.e.f. 02.12.2004. The respondents are directed to provide the benefits to the petitioner within 3(three) months from today."

[6] It is not necessary to refer to several other similar pronouncements by this Court. The crux of the logic applied by the Courts in those cases was that the Sub-Inspectors of Police governed by the pay scales prior to Revision of Pay Rules, 1999 (ROP 1999) were granted scale of Rs.1450-3710/-. They were entitled to Career Advancement Scheme-1 (CAS-1, for short) upon completion of requisite number of years of service as per the then prevailing pay rules. They were thereupon placed in the next higher scale of `1700-3980/-. When ROP 1999 were introduced the scale of Rs.1700-3980/- was fitted against revised scale of Rs.5500-10700/-. The Government had, therefore, granted them benefit of this higher scale of Rs.5500-10700/- while implementing CAS-1 in their favour. What they had argued and the High Court had accepted was that the scale of Rs.1700-3980/-(pre-revised prior to 01.01.1999) was attached to the post of Inspectors. When ROP 1999 were introduced the Inspectors were granted the scale of pay of Rs.7450-13000/-. These Sub-Inspectors, therefore, should be first placed if not already granted, the scale of pay of Rs.1700-3980/- at the time of CAS-1 and while implementing ROP 1999 they would be fitted in the scale of pay of Rs.7450-13000/-.

[7] Such logic does not apply in the case of the petitioner. He was born in service on 16.07.2006. When he joined the service ROP 2009 were not formulated. Nevertheless, such ROP were famed and implemented w.e.f. 01.01.2006. His basic pay from the very inception was thus revised as per such revision. ROP 2009 contained a somewhat different scheme for career advancement of those Government servants who could not get promotion due to congestion for 10 years. The Rule-10 of ROP 2009 pertained to the new scheme of Assured Career Progression(ACP). Relevant portion of this Rule reads as under:

Introduction of new scheme titled Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme with effect from 1st January, 2006 replacement of existing CAS introduced under TSCS (Revised Pay Rules, 1999

"(1) Under the new scheme (A.C.P), all Government employees in PB-1, PB-2 & PB-3 shall be entitled to get a maximum of three financial up-gradations, the first after 10 years of service under regular scale 2nd after another 7 years of service (total 17 years) and 3rd after further 8 years of service (total 25 years) in their service career provided the concerned employee had not get up to three numbers benefit of scale up gradations including promotions already. In case PB-4, the employees borne under Grade Pay Rs.3700/-(against Pre-revised scale of Rs.7800-15,100/-), under Grade Pay Rs.4500 (against Pre-revised scale of Rs.10,000-15,100/-) and Grade Pay Rs.4800/- (against Pre-revised scale of Rs.10,650-15850/-) would be entitled to get 3, 2 and 1 financial up gradations respectively under scheme provided the concerned employee had not get scale upgradation including promotion up to 3, 2 & 1 respectively already.

Only the benefit of fixation of pay will be available at the time of financial upgradation under this scheme. For this, an increase of one increment in the existing pay in his/her Pay Band (i.e. 2.5% of Band Pay plus Grade Pay) along with next available Grade Pay shall be admissible as benefit of financial upgradation under this scheme. However, in cases where financial upgradation and promotion fall in the same Grade Pay, in that case if any employee has already got the benefit of financial upgradation under ACP, he will not get any further financial benefit of increment etc for his promotion in the same Grade Pay. He will, however, thereafter be entitled to the higher designation and all the functional responsibilities and facilities available for the higher post.

Besides providing one increment @ 2.5% and the next available Grade Pay under the ACP, the concerned employee will continue to remain in his existing Pay Band. However, in the event of his crossing the maximum of the Pay Band as a result of this upgradation, she/he will move to the next higher Pay Band but without any change in the earlier Grade Pay."

[8] Thus, the ROP 2009 introduced a wholly new scheme for career progression. Like in the previous ROPs, the logic was common namely to grant the relief to an employee who on account of non-availability of promotional prospects had stagnated in the cadre for a particular period of time. However, the formula applied in ROP 2009 was vastly different. The petitioner has been granted benefit of this ACP and with the fitment and the pay fixation pursuant to such ACP benefit being granted the petitioner has not raised any dispute.

[9] His case, however, is that like in the cases of Inspectors who were engaged earlier, he should also get fitment in the Pay Band which is prescribed for the post of Inspectors. This demand of the petitioner does not flow from Rule-10 of ROP 2009. Since the petitioner is governed all throughout by ROP 2009 in relation to his pay fixation, his right to receive the benefit of ACP must also be traced to the said Rules. The dichotomy noticed by this Court in earlier cases where a certain upgraded pay scale which was prescribed for the promotional post of Inspectors, got fitted at a higher scale upon implementation of ROP 1999, does not arise in the present case. Granting benefit to the petitioner would result into a chain reaction of such demand for higher fitments arising in perpetuity.

[10] In a recent judgment in the context of the ACP introduced under ROP 2009 in case of Suvarun Datta versus State of Tripura & others in WP(C) No.99 of 2019 and others decided on 11th December, 2019 this Court had made following observations :

"8. It can thus be seen that the ROP, 2009 provided an entirely different scheme of Assured Career Progression replacing earlier modified Career Advancement Scheme contained in ROP, 1999. The admitted fact is that none of the petitioners completed the minimum qualifying service of 10 years for claiming the benefit of modified Career Advancement Scheme under the ROP of 1999 till 01.01.2006. All the petitioners completed 10 years of service as LDCs long after 01.01.2006. We have noticed that petitioner of WP(C) No.99 of 2019 completed such 10 years of service only in the year 2013. By the time, therefore, these petitioners had completed 10 years of service, ROP of 1999 no longer held the field. The ROP of 2009 were brought into existence, revised pay scales as per the said revision were implemented, petitioners had opted for being governed by the ROP of 2009.

Under the circumstances, the petitioners cannot claim to enjoy the continued benefit of modified Career Advancement Scheme as per the Rules of 1999. Their entitlements of pay and other allowances as well as the career progression benefits would be traced only to the ROP of 2009. Any other view would bring about an anomalous situation. The employees such as the petitioners would be governed by the revised pay scales as per ROP, 2009 and corresponding pay fixations whereas they would receive benefit of career advancement as per the scheme contained in the ROP, 1999. Such a hybrid situation is neither envisaged under the rules, nor can be interpreted.

Quite apart from the plain defect of introduction of the fresh ROP, 2009 replacing the earlier ROP, 1999 even intrinsically there are indication in Rule 10 of ROP, 2009 where the benefits would be available to all existing employees who complete the qualifying service after 01.01.2006. For example, under sub-rule (4) it is provided that those Government employees who had completed 10 years of service before 01.01.2006 but had not got or consumed any benefit of promotion or scale upgradation under revised pay rules framed in the past, they will now be provided the benefit of first ACP from the date of their coming over to the revised pay structure under these rules. All emoluments such as pay scales, pay fixation and allowances would thus be governed by the ROP of 2009 upon its promulgation.

Under the circumstances, having agreed to and having been governed by the ROP of 2009 for the purpose of revised pay scale and pay fixations, the petitioners can claim benefit of Assured Career Progression as per Rule 10 of the said ROP, 2009 only. In other words, the petitioners‟ expectation that upon completion of 10 years of service in the cadre of LDC without promotion, they must get the benefit of modified Career Advancement Scheme contained in the ROP of 1999, simply cannot be accepted.

With respect to their pay fixations from the due dates of completion of 10 years of service by granting the benefit of Assured Career Progression as per Rule 10 of the ROP of 2009, I find no justifiable grievance having been raised. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 envisages a maximum 3(three) financial up-gradations in the career of a Government employee, first after

10 years of service under a regular scale, second after 7 years of service and third after further 8 years of service provided the employee has not got three benefits of scale upgradation including promotion. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 provides that only the benefit of fixation of pay would be available at the time of financial upgradation under the scheme for which an increase of one increment in the existing pay in the Pay Band of the employee (i.e. 2.5% of Band Pay plus Grade Pay) along with next available Grade Pay will be admissible as benefit of financial upgradation. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 clarifies that besides granting the said benefit the concerned employee will continue to remain in his existing Pay Band. Only in the event of his/her crossing the maximum of the Pay Band as a result of the upgradation he or she will move to the next higher Pay Band without any change in the earlier Grade Pay.

This is precisely what the set of benefits the petitioner has received pursuant to the impugned pay fixation order dated 28.11.2013. No further benefits can be granted."

[11] In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.