Indrajit Sinha vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents filed W.A. No.146 of 2019 against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2017 whereby it has been declared that the writ petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1,450-3,710/- or its revised scale of pay of Rs.7,450-13,000/- or the further graded scale of Rs.10,000-15,000/-considering his entering in the service as the Sub-Inspector in the spirit of ROP Rules, 1998 and ROP Rules, 1999 and the corresponding revised pay scales applicable to the writ petitioner. In terms of the said judgment, the arrears were paid to the writ petitioner.

The petitioner along with others challenged the final order passed in W.A.No.146 of 2019 by modifying the said direction as the petitioner and others were not afforded with any notice of hearing and thus, they were deprived of their opportunity to make submission and as such by filing the Review Pet.No.07 of 2020 in W.A.No.146 of 2019, they challenged the judgment dated 09.09.2019 passed in W.A.No.146 of 2019.

The said review petition was allowed by the order dated 11.03.2020 by recalling the said judgment passed in W.A.No.146 of 2019. Despite that, the Superintendent of Police (GRP) Tripura, Agartala has issued an order for recovery of the excess amount to the extent of Rs.14,67,206/- from the petitioner [Annexure-4 to the writ petition].

Being aggrieved by the said order, as Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated, the present writ petition is filed as the order of recovery is contrary to the direction of the said decision of this court dated 20.02.2017 delivered in WP(C)No.813 of 2016. The petitioner in the writ petition has stated that no stay order has been passed by the Division Bench after recalling the judgment and order dated 09.09.2019 passed in W.A.No.146 of 2019 and hence, the judgment of the single Judge is governing the field and prima facie the order for recovery dated 25.04.2020 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] is unsustainable in law.

Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has however submitted that the judgment in other writ appeals are not recalled and as such, there cannot be any blanket observation.

The court is not interested in passing any general or blank order or observation but, so far the petitioner is concerned, the order dated 25.04.2020 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] shall remain stayed subject to the decision in the writ appeal being W.A.No.146 of 2019.

In terms of thereof, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.

No order as to costs.