Gautam Banik vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. C. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the state.

[2] By means of this writ petition, the memorandum No.F.3(12)-FIN(PC)/2014 dated 31.12.2017 has been challenged. By the said memorandum, it has been clarified that:

(i) a stenographer who has joined in the service prior to 01.01.1996 shall get automatic scale up-gradation after 4 (four) years continuous and satisfactory service which will be treated as first gradation subject to the condition that he has not got any promotion during that period.

(ii) He/she shall get subsequent scale up-gradation after completion of next 13 (thirteen) years of service from the date of availing of automatic scale up-gradation after 4 (four) years [total 17 (seventeen) years from the date of initial joining in service] subject to the condition that he/she has not got any promotion during that period.

[3] There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed after 01.01.2006. To be precise, the petitioner had joined the service on 09.06.2010. The petitioner has stated that in terms of the 3rd Pay Commission, as constituted by the Govt. of Tripura, automatic movement of the member of the cadre services, including the Tripura Government Stenographers Service from Grade IV(b) to Grade IV(a) on completion of 4 (four) years of service. But later on, by the addendum published by the Notification No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)88 dated 13.012.1988, the Tripura Government Stenographers Service was denied from such benefit. That decision was challenged in Civil Rule No.245 of 1999 (Anjan Debroy & Anr. Vs. State of Tripura). By the judgment dated 24.07.2014 the said writ petition was allowed by extending the similar benefit for the members of the Tripura Government Stenographers Service. The said decision had been challenged in the apex court by Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.14427 of 2015. The said SLP was dismissed. Thus, the judgment dated 24.07.2014 had reached its finality.

[4] The state has implemented the direction therein vide the letter no. F.25(4)-FIN(G)/2007/Shadow/424-30 dated 30.03.2016. As many as 184 similarly situated persons further approached this court by filing the writ petition being WP(C) No.371 of 2016. The said writ petition was also allowed by the judgment dated 15.12.2016. Later on, the Memorandum No.F.37(29)-GA (P&T)/88(L) dated 06.10.2017 the benefits of automatic movement from Grade IV(b) to Grade IV(a) were extended. According to the petitioner, he is similarly situated and is entitled to such benefit in terms of the judgment and order dated 15.12.2016.

[5] Further, the Government of Tripura in GA(P&T) Department had vide the memorandum No.F.37(29)-GA(P&T)/88(L) dated 20.04.2018 extended the benefit of automatic financial up-gradation to the left-out 287 stenographers on completion of their 4(four) years of service in Grade IV(b), as earlier given to 184 stenographers.

[6] By the impugned memorandum dated 30.12.2017 (Annexure-5 to this writ petition), the above clarification was made. The petitioner had been excluded from seeking similar benefits. According to the petitioner, since the beneficiaries belong to the same class, there cannot be any classification which is not attended by intelligible differentia and there cannot be any differentiation of fact, in order to exclude petitioner from getting the similar benefits. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the memorandum dated 30.12.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) for setting up a cut off date on 01.01.2006.

[7] Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A appearing for the respondents has submitted that it is not the cut off date, as referred in the impugned memorandum but it is the date of effect of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 which had repealed or brought eclipse Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 under which the automatic movement after 4 years in the cadre services was introduced. Thus, when the said rules came to an end, the benefit generated from the same rules has come to an end as such provision has not been retained or saved in the subsequent rule. The effect of repeal takes away such benefit from all those persons who had joined the service on and after 01.01.1996. Since the petitioner has joined the service after 01.01.1996, he is not entitled to get such benefit under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 which have come to an end on 31.12.1995. Hence, the challenge in this writ petition is totally misdirected, unsustainable and liable to be dismissed.

[8] In the review petition No.46 of 2019, arising from WP(C) No.760 of 2016, this court while correcting the error apparent in the judgment rendered in a batch of writ petitions, had found that one of the petitioners namely (Sumitra Das) was allowed the benefits by mistake. Hence, the state sought review of the common judgment and order dated 15.12.2016 delivered in WP(C) 760 of 2016. This court allowed the review inasmuch as the said writ petitioner, namely Sumitra Das was appointed on 29.04.1997 after the repeal of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. While disposing the said review petition, this court had observed that as follows:

"This decision has been followed in a decision of Madras High Court, which has been relied by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent, in Rajesh Kumar Bagmar vs. Swathi @ Nagina [judgment and order dated 03.12.2018 delivered in Review Application No.306 of 2018]. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law as derived by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent. But this court is satisfied that the mistake that has been located after passing of the impugned judgment is an error in fact which is apparent on the records. Moreover, under any circumstances the respondent [the writ petitioner] cannot get the similar relief like the other writ petitioners as she was appointed on 29.04.1997 when the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 had eclipsed and that benefit was not carried forward by the subsequent rules." [Emphasis added]

[9] Thus, this writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment and order dated 28.06.2019 delivered in Review petition no.46 of 2019 (State of Tripura & Ors. vs. Sumitra Das). There is no substance in the writ petition. The impugned memorandum is mere clarification, it has not created any new situation or right. Since the petitioner was appointed after Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 had come into operation, he cannot claim any benefit under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 for obvious reasons. The said rule was eclipsed after 31.12.1995.

Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.