AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By means of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner, High Court Employees' Association, represented by its Secretary and two other petitioners, employed in the High Court as Superintendent and Head Clerk, have prayed for extending the benefit of the revised pay-scale and other ancillary benefits, as have been provided to the employees of the subordinate judiciary in terms of the recommendations of Shetty Commission.
Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Baran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the respondent-State. Also heard Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- High Court of Tripura.
Admitted facts are: the State-respondents had implemented the report of the Shetty Commission in regard to the pay-scale and ancillary benefits including allowances subject to the recommendation for up-gradation and post creation to the employees of the subordinate judiciary, of course, with further rider that benefits extended to the staff of subordinate judiciary would be subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the judgment of this Court passed in WP(C) No.617 of 2015. This fact would be evident from the order dated 16.12.2017 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition), which is as under:
"Office of the District & Sessions Judge
South Tripura Judicial District::Belonia
No. F.47-DJ/S/BLN/2015-17/9312-23, December, the 16th of 2017
ORDER
In pursuance of Notification vide No. F.3(2)-FIN(PC)/93(P III), dated 02.12.2017 issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, Agartala and in view of the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in its order dated 31.08.2016 delivered in WP(C) 617 of 2015 and order dated 11.04.2017 delivered in I.A. No. 216 of 2017 arising out of Writ Petition © No. 617 of 2015 and in partial modification of the Notification of even number dated 10.09.2015, the employees of the subordinate judiciary on regular pay scale shall be entitled to get the following benefits of allowances (as arrears) in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation subject to outcome of the Special Leave Petition.
State of Allowances under 6th CPC
Sl. No
Allowances of 6th pay commission recommendation
Date of effect
Till
1.
HRA-10% of basic pay without any ceiling
01.09.2008
31.12.2015
2.
vide No. F.2(13)/2008-E.II(B), dt. 29.08.2008
Transport (Conveyance) Allowances (TA)
01.09.2008
31.12.2015
3.
vide No. F.21(2)/2008-E-II(B) dt. 29.08.2008
Special (Duty) Allowances (SDA) vide No.
01.09.2008
31.12.2015
4.
F.11(5)/2008-E.II(B), dt. 29.08.2008 Special Compensatory Allowances (SCA) vide No. F.3(1)/2008-E.II(B), dt. 29.08.2008
(Remote State of Tripura included
Locality) vide PART 'C' as per said office memorandum
w.e.f. 01.09.2008
31.12.2015
5.
Special Compensatory (Hill Areas)
01.09.2008
31.12.2015
6.
Allowances (SCA) vide No. F.4(2)/2008-E.II(B), dt. 29.08.2008 Children Education Allowances (CEA) vide
01.09.2008
31.12.2015
7.
No. 12011/03/2008-Estt(Allowance) dt.
02.09.2008 Non Productivity Linked Bonus (PLB) &
01.04.2006
31.12.2015
8.
Adhoc Bonus vide No. 7/22/2007-E.III.A, dt.
13.10.2008 Dearness Allowance (DA)(Central)
01.07.2006
31.12.2015
9.
Washing Allowance to Group 'D' employees
& Drivers vide F.No.14/3/2008-JCA dt. 11.09.2008
01.09.2008
31.12.2015
10.
LTC, Once in every four years Block, vide No. 31011/4/2008-Estt(A), dt. 23.09.2008
01.01.2006
31.12.2015
11.
Gratuity, Maximum Gratuity is limited to Rs. 10,00,000/-
01.01.2006
31.12.2015
12.
Split Duty Allowance to Sweeping & Cleaning Assistant vide No. F.9(11)/2008-E- II(B) dt. 29.08.2008
01.09.2008
31.12.2015
13.
Scheduled/Tribal Area Allowance vide No. 17(1)/2008-E.II(B), dt. 29.08.2008
Only applicable to the employees serving under the TTAADC areas w.e.f. 01.09.2008
31.12.2015
The allowances of 6th CPC shall be continued w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2017 on the basic pay fixed on 31.12.2015 under Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2015 and thereafter w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 on the basic pay fixed on 01.04.2017 under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017. The employees of the subordinate judiciary shall be entitled to get the arrears for the said period.
Besides those the Subordinate judiciary employees shall be entitled to get the allowances as mentioned in the Notification dated 10.09.2015 issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, Agartala.
Further, as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in its order dated 04.09.2017 in Contempt Case vide No. Cont. Cas (C) 31 of 2017, if any decision is taken in the superior forum contrary to what has been delivered in judgment and order dated 31.08.2016 in WP(C) 617 of 2015, the employees who would be receiving such benefits in terms of judgment and order dated 31.08.2016 delivered in WP(C) 617 of 2015 shall refund the entire amount to the State Government.
All the DDOs are hereby directed to act accordingly."
The implementation of the judgment and order dated 31.08.2016, passed in WP(C) No.617 of 2015 granting pay-scale and other benefits to the employees of subordinate judiciary prompted the petitioners to file the instant writ petition seeking similar benefits as provided to the employees of subordinate judiciary in terms of the order dated 16.12.2017, reproduced here- in-before, w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
Mr. Somik Deb, learned Senior Counsel submits that the employees of the High Court had filed a writ petition before this court asking for granting one increment earlier in terms of the order issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this High Court under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petition was registered as WP(C) 71 of 2015. In that writ petition, a learned Single Judge of this High Court(S. Talapatra, J) held that the members of the High Court Employees Association i.e. the employees and staff of this High Court are at par with those of the employees of the subordinate judiciary, if not, superior in respect of performance of duties and responsibilities.
While deciding the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge made an in-depth enquiry as to whether the employees of the High Court are similarly situated to those of the employees of the subordinate judiciary. The rationale of the findings of the learned Single Judge holding that the employees of this High Court are similarly situated to those of the employees of the subordinate judiciary are affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court and, further approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when the Special Leave Petition filed by the State-respondents was dismissed in the terms as under:
"UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER. The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay."
Thereafter, a review petition was filed by the State-respondents before a Division Bench of this Court to revisit the judgment and order dated 08.03.2017 in Writ Appeal No.12 of 2017, but, the said review petition was not entertained by the Division Bench and, thus, the same was dismissed.
While making enquiry as to whether the High Court employees are similarly situated to the employees of the subordinate judiciary, the learned Single Judge had observed thus:
"From the above notification dated 10.09.2015, it is apparent that the judicial staff carrying the pay scale of Rs.4840- 13000 [PB-1] with grade pay of Rs.1400 to the judicial staff carrying the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 [PB-4] with grade pay of Rs. 7600, has been given the benefits of the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission w.e.f. 01.04.2003. It is the admitted position that such benefit has not been extended to the employees of the High Court, who are discharging identical duties and responsibilities, even though they are having the qualifications at the entry, much higher than the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary and the responsibility attached is more than equivalent, and no less by any measure, rather higher so far the sensitivity attached to their responsibilities is concerned".
[emphasis added]
At para 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38, the learned Single Judge further had observed thus:
"30. From the communication dated 17.09.2014 (AnnexureP/9 to the writ petition), it appears that the respondent No.3 has clearly acceded as under :
"As such, in my opinion, all the Class-III non-gazetted staff of the grade of Head Clerk, UDC, Bench Assistant, LDC, Assistant Librarian, Library Assistant, Programmer & Sr. Computer Assistant of the High Court Service including Personal Assistant of Stenographer cadre and all the Group-B & Group-C non-gazetted Staff of the grade of System Officer and System Assistant of the High Court of Tripura e- Courts Service should also get such one further advance increment because they are much higher qualified than their compatriots working in the subordinate Courts or in the State Government."
It has been clearly acceded in the said recommendation that the High Court employees are better equipped for their education and for their capacity to discharge duties and responsibilities which are no less than in comparison to the duties and responsibilities as discharged by the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary. Even, the respondents No.2, 4 and 5 on the face of a categorical statement made by the writ petitioners that they are discharging higher duties and responsibilities, much more than equal vis-a-vis the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary, the State has utterly failed to show how such statement can be stated to be improper and erroneous. There is no averment except a trivial statement that the service conditions are different, such as, the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary are exisible to transfer whereas the employees of the High Courts, are not. Such evasive replies can be treated as admission of those respondents.
Further, the communication made by the Registrar General, High Court of Tripura on 17.09.2014 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition), has clearly revealed that there exists equivalence of duties and responsibilities between the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary vis-a-vis the employees of the High Court in respect of the certain posts. But others cannot be excluded from the array as the Judges of the Subordinate Judiciary has been extended the separate award in terms of the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, as stated earlier, there is no denial to the averment of equivalence. Thus, this court is not required to embark on studies for equivalence of duties and responsibilities discharged by those categories of employees working in the Subordinate Judiciary and in the High Court Administration.
In Union of India Vs. Dineshan K.K., having confronted with the similar situation, the apex court has observed in para 26 as under :
In the present case, therefore, in the light of the admitted factual position, the question of examination of external comparisons, internal relativities and other factors, to be kept in view for job evaluation, considered to be a complex issue to be studied only by expert bodies, does not arise. As a necessary corollary, the issue as to whether there is a complete or wholesale identity between the said paramilitary forces, does not survive for consideration.
[Emphasis supplied]
In the case in hand, this court is not required to make such complex studies in view of the stand taken by the respondents. Thus, there cannot be inherent defects in comparing and evaluating the works done by the different categories of employees in those 2(two) organizations.
This court is not oblivious that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on the qualities and characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, the qualification or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in the administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration, for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The process of recruitment may itself in certain cases makes a difference. If the educational qualifications are different then also the doctrine may not have its embrace. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. If the persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale is granted to such persons who are evaluated by competent authority, cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he was doing the same work as another carpenter in the regular service. A quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work as assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. The functions may be the same but the responsibilities do make a difference. Thus, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body.
But, the respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 did not raise any objection to make the distinction or the basis on which it can be held that the equivalence cannot be drawn or it requires studies by the expert body. On the contrary, there is no such objection at all. As such, exercise as stated above, is not at all warranted in the context of this case. Hence, the objection as raised casually by the respondents No.2, 4 and 5, cannot survive.
Having held so, this court is of the considered opinion that the members of the petitioner No.1 or the Officers of the High Court of Tripura is entitled to get one advance increment as similar to the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary in the same manner and method as reflected in the revised Notification dated 10.09.2015, as extracted above.
As per Justice Shetty Commission's recommendation, the said advance increment was granted w.e.f. 01.04.2003 on the upgraded pay scale for the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary. That increment has merged with the pay scale as extended to the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary w.e.f. 01.01.2006. No such upgraded pay scales either have been claimed by the petitioners or no such pay scales can be granted in their favour. The employees/officers of the High Court of Tripura is entitled to 1(one) advance increment, equal to the judicial staff of the SubordinateJudiciary w.e.f. 01.04.2003 notionally till 31.12.2014, the preceding year of filing the writ petition. The respondents No.2, 4 and 5, as corollary to the above direction, are further directed to grant, sanction and release necessary fund to meet the contingent requirement within a period of 3(three) months from today to the High Court of Tripura for implementation of this direction.
Before parting with the records, it is made clear that the above decision has been arrived at on the assumed premises that the respondents No.2, 4 and 5 are not inclined to extend the benefit of one advance increment in favour of the employees/officers of the High Court of Tripura.
In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs".
While affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench of this High Court has held thus:
"The respondents to the writ petition did not challenge the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioners felt aggrieved only in respect of the directions of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the benefit what has been allowed should not have been made notional from 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2014.
It is apparent that the employees of the sub-ordinate judiciary got the benefit of one advance increment w.e.f. 01.04.2003. While the petitioners were held to be similarly situated, if not in better position, they are similarly entitled to the benefits on the principles of "Equal Pay For Equal Work" and since the State Government pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court granted the benefits to the employees of the sub-ordinate judiciary w.e.f. 01.04.2003, in our considered opinion, the same should be made available to the employees of High Court also on the same standard".
The writ petition no. WP(C) 617 of 2015 titled as [Tarun Kumar Sinha and another vs. State of Tripura and others], being so filed, the learned Single Judge of this Court extended the benefit of granting revised pay-scale recommended by 6th Central Pay Commission. While deciding the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that:-
"21. From the rival contentions the following questions fall for consideration of this court.
i) Whether the apex court by the said order dated 16.03.2015 has directed the State Government/Union Territories to give the revised pay structure on the upgraded pay structure as recommended by the Shetty Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of the 6 th Central Pay Commission recommendation with all other benefits or not?
ii) Whether the financial constraint can be considered as a tenable ground for denying the said benefits in this context, if it is decided that the employees of the subordinate judiciary in Tripura is entitled to the benefit of the revised pay structure of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006?
iii) Whether the employees of the subordinate judiciary of Tripura is entitled to the arrear benefits, meaning the difference of pay and allowances, if the employees of the subordinate judiciary is considered to be entitled to the revised pay structure in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006?
Before responding to these questions it is to be noted that the apex court has clearly spelt out that no less pay can be given to the employees of the subordinate judiciary beyond what has been recommended by the Shetty Commission and what has been ordered by the apex court. However, the employees of the subordinate judiciary will be allowed to draw higher benefits if such benefit accrues from the revised pay structure introduced by the respective State Governments/UT administrations as additional benefits. Another aspect may be recorded that by and large, the respondents have implemented the Shetty Commission recommendations so far the pre-revised phase i.e. till 31.12.2005 is concerned.
(i) WHETHER THE APEX COURT BY THE SAID ORDER DATED 16.03.2015 AS DIRECTED THE STATE GOVERNMENT/UNION TERRITORIES TO GIVE THE REVISED PAY STRUCTURE ON THE UPGRADED PAY STRUCTURE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SHETTY COMMISSION W.E.F. 01.01.2006 IN TERMS OF THE 6 TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS WITH ALL OTHER BENEFITS OR NOT?
In para-16 of the said order dated 16.03.2015 the apex court has categorically provided that it is not permissible to revert back to the earlier scale of pay that existed under the 5th Pay Commission upon the Shetty Commission provided the financial benefits including the upgraded pay scale and it has been held in no uncertain terms that the corresponding revised pay scales/structures shall only be under the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations. The apex court has on the basis of the Shetty Commission recommendations has judicially declared a special package for the employees of subordinate judiciary for enhancing the efficacy of the judicial administration by the orders including the order dated 16.03.2015. Thus, as a measure, the said package has to continue and it has been directed that revised pay structures which are to be applied w.e.f. 01.01.2006 are the revised pay structures as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission and by the future Central Pay Commission. Therefore, the respondents are directed to implement the said pay structure as the said order dated 16.03.2015 was passed in a proceeding where the State of Tripura was represented by its Chief Secretary and no clarification has been sought from the apex court. Therefore, there cannot be any other derivative meaning of the order dated 16.03.2015. Hence, the respondents are directed to give the revised pay structure to the employees of the subordinate judiciary on the pay structure given on the basis of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The arrears by way of difference till 31.03.2016 shall be paid by the respondents in a lump sum or in 4(four) equal installments and such payment shall be made within 31.03.2017. The other benefits shall also be released in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations.
(ii) WHETHER THE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A TENABLE GROUND FOR DENYING THE SAID BENEFITS IN THIS CONTEXT, IF IT IS DECIDED THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY IN TRIPURA IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE REVISED PAY STRUCTURE OF THE 6TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS W.E.F. 01.01.2006?
By the order dated 15.07.2008 delivered in I.A. No.71A, the apex court had rejected the objection relating to the financial constraints. In that order it has been held that:
"We do not think that by implementing the aforesaid recommendation the State Government will have to incur heavy financial burden since only reasonable recommendations have been made in the report of the States and the Union Territories can look into at the earliest ".
Thus, this court also finds no further reason to accept the ground of objection as regards the financial constraints as raised by the respondents.
(iii) WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY OF TRIPURA IS ENTITLED TO THE ARREAR BENEFITS, MEANING THE DIFFERENCE OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES, IF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY IS CONSIDERED TO BE ENTITLED TO THE REVISED PAY STRUCTURE IN TERMS OF THE 6TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS W.E.F. 01.01.2006?
Yes, the employees of the subordinate judiciary are entitled to the arrear in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations benefits such as the difference of pay and allowances in terms of the direction as above.
In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."
The said judgment was implemented by order dated 16.12.2017, as reproduced in earlier part of this judgment.
The employees of this High Court through their Association has sought for extension of similar benefits, as provided to the employees of subordinate judiciary under the order dated 16.12.2017 and also in similar terms and undertaking.
Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by the State-respondents wherein their bone of contentions are that the employees of the High Court are not covered by the recommendation of the Shetty Commission which covers only the employees of the subordinate judiciary. Secondly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) 617 of 2015 is under challenge before the Supreme Court.
Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned GA referring to the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition has submitted that so far the Shetty Commission's recommendations are concerned, those were not applicable to the employees of High Court. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned GA has relied upon the following paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition:-
"12. That, with reference to the statements made in paragraphs 2.9 of the Writ Petition, I say that the State Government has filed an SLP before the Apex Court on the outcome of WP(C) No. 617/2015. The notification at Annexure-7 of the Writ Petition clearly relates to the employees of subordinate judiciary. It is not for the employee of the High Court because neither they were a party to Supreme Court case nor Shetty Commission has taken them into consideration I say that the Judgment and Order in WP(C) 617/15 is now impugned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) 11699-11700 of 2018 where leave has been granted on 07.09.2018. In view of this the petitioners cannot get any relief on the basis of said Judgment.
That, with reference to the statements made in paragraph 3, 2.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Writ Petition, I say that there is total distinction between the employees of High Court and the employees of subordinate judiciary. There is no justification for the members of Petitioner No.1 to claim benefits of pay protection citing illogical grounds. If so, similar matter would have cropped up in other High Courts. But there is no claim that the rights given by the Constitution of India have been curved. Analogy & similar treatment on the principal of equal pay for equal work, if any should be drawn only between the employees of High Court of Tripura and their counter parts working/ serving in any other High Courts in India but at any rate, not between High Court employees and subordinate Judiciary's employees. Employees of High Court work in better work environment and facilities in terms of infrastructure as well as no liability of transfer from one place to another. Thus, they are serving those benefits in comparison to employees of subordinate Judiciary. Taking into accounts those aspects & other difficulties, Shetty Commission recommendation for the employees of subordinate Judiciary was made".
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned GA has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and another vs. Surjit Singh and others, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 514, [see p 528 para 20] wherein at para 20, it was observed thus:
"20. This court in S.C. Chandra case, in particular, noticed a decision of another three-Judge Bench in Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy in which one of us (S.B. Sinha, J) was a member, to hold:
"36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy".
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned GA has relied upon this decision only to support his contention that it is not the duty of the Court to evaluate and examine whether a class of employees is similarly situated to the class of employees belonging to a separate department.
In my opinion, having gone through the findings of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 71 of 2015, the fact that the employees of High Court are similarly situated to those of the employees of subordinate judiciary is no longer res integra, which would be evinced from the judgment itself. Therefore, this judgment should not be burdened with the replication of the discussions on reasonings and findings of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.71 of 2015. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge after a comprehensive enquiry has clearly spelt out that the employees of the High Court are similarly situated to those of the staff of the subordinate judiciary in regard to their duties and responsibilities. This finding of fact has been further affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court which was approved by the Supreme Court. As such, this finding of fact has attained its finality.
It is further admitted position that in view of the judgment passed in WP(C) 71 of 2015, the State-respondents have extended the benefit of one advance increment to the employees of the High Court after considering the fact that the staffs of this High Court are similarly situated to those of the employees of the subordinate judiciary. Since, it is already decided that the employees of the High Court are similarly situated to those of the employees of the subordinate judiciary, I do not find any reason to deny the employees of this High Court from their legitimate entitlement of the benefit of revised pay structure as recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and other allowances in terms of the order dated 16.12.2017. The members of the petitioner association deserve similar treatment as those of the staff of subordinate judiciary since both the employees of subordinate judiciary and the High Court are similarly situated having similar and identical duties and responsibilities. Since it is established that the High Court employees are at par with the employees of subordinate judiciary, they are entitled to the arrears of pay under Revised Pay structure from the date the same was provided and in tune with the staff of subordinate judiciary and other ancillary benefits like allowances, etc. as well, in terms of the order dated 16.12.2017 and subsequent amendments thereof, if any. Accordingly, it is ordered.
The State-respondents are further directed to extend the benefits of 6th Central Pay Commission to the employees of the High Court of Tripura as provided to the employees of subordinate judiciary under the order dated 16.12.2017 invoking the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'.
It is made clear that Mr. Somik Deb, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners has given an undertaking that if the present order passed by this Court is quashed or set aside by the superior Court, then, the employees of the High Court shall make refund of the entire amount so received by them to the State government. Further, considering the financial constraints, the State-government has been suffering as submitted by learned G.A., this Court allows the State-respondents to implement the directions recorded in this judgment, after 6(six) months, but, within 8(eight) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.