Kajal Barman vs State Of Tripura And Ors

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

There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable of Police, Home Department, Government of Tripura on 24.11.1981 and his service was confirmed in the rank of Constable on

19.06.1987 as would be evident from the memorandum bearing reference No.DO.No.2540/TAP I BN/88 dated 31.12.1988 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition]. The petitioner had been promoted to the post of Head Constable (Un-Armed Branch), Home Department, Government of Tripura by the order under No.DO.No.712 dated 25.07.2000 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition] with effect from his date of joining i.e. 25.07.2000. Later on, by the order under No.DO. No.654 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] the petitioner was promoted to the post of Wireless Operator (ASI), Home Department, Government of Tripura with effect from 26.07.2004.

Even there is no dispute that the petitioner has retired from the service on 30.11.2017. Initially, two persons holding the post of Wireless Operator were added as the respondents No.5 and 6. But later on, their name has been deleted at the risk of the petitioner. From pay slips of those two persons namely Pradip Debnath and Samir Ghosh, the petitioner discovered that he was getting less grade pay then those persons who were occupying the post of Wireless Operator. To nourish his submission, the petitioner has placed on record two pay slips [Annexure-5 to the writ petition]. It has been stated that the petitioner ultimately was getting less pay by Rs.400/- in comparison to Sri Pradip Debnath and Sri Samir Ghosh. The petitioner had in that context served a notice on the respondents on 14.05.2018 demanding to make up his pay at par with those persons. The said notice dated 14.05.2018 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] did not invoke any positive yield. But by the reply as received by the petitioner under No.700(5)/F.3(48)-Estt/PHQ/16 dated 24.05.2018, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner's pay had been fixed in accordance with the relevant rules and maintaining necessary formalities.

Having aggrieved by the decision as contained in the reply dated 24.05.2018, the petitioner has filed this very writ petition urging for issuance of direction on the respondents to give him equal pay at par with those two persons as mentioned above and also for quashing the letter dated 24.05.2018 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition]. The respondents have filed the reply supported by necessary documents and contended that the writ petition is entirely speculative one. The petitioner had drawn his last pay on 30.11.2017 at Rs.41,440/- and the grade pay of Rs.2,400/-bringing the said sum to Rs.43,840/- and all through, the petitioner had received his salary without any protest.

Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that one Pradip Debnath with whom the financial benefit of the petitioner has been sought to be compared was promoted to the post of Wireless Operator (ASI) on 28.02.2001 long before the petitioner got his promotion on 26.07.2004. Sri Debnath got the ACP-3 on 03.05.2009 and his pay was fixed at Rs.13,313/- with effect from 01.07.2009 in PB-2 in the pay scale of Rs.5,310-24,000 with the grade pay of Rs.2,100/-under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, ROP Rules, 2009, in short. They have admitted that on 30.11.2007 the pay of Sri Debnath was Rs.41,710/-. The other person with whom the comparison has been sought to be drawn is Samir Ghosh who was appointed as Constable on 11.04.1983 and promoted to the rank of Head Constable (UB) on 01.04.1997. His pay was fixed at Rs.4,500/- in the scale of pay of Rs.3,300-7,100/- with DNI on 01.04.1998. Sri Ghosh got further promotion to the rank of Wireless Operator(ASI) on 28.02.2001 and his pay was fixed at Rs.5,100/- with effect from 01.04.2001 in the scale of pay of Rs.4,000-7,890/- having applied FR.22(I)(a)(2) with DNI on 01.04.2002. He has also got ACP-2 with effect from 28.02.2009 and his pay was fixed at Rs.15,660/- [in the basic pay of Rs.12,860 with the grade pay of Rs.2,800] under the ROP Rules, 2009. On 30.11.2017 [the day of retirement of the petitioner] pay of Samir Ghosh was fixed at Rs.43,130/-with grade pay of Rs.2,800/-. It has been mentioned that the rate of grade pay was changed under Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009(12th Amendment), 2015.

Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court towards the fixation statement in respect of few employees including Pradip Debnath. There is nothing new beyond what has been stated by the respondents in their reply, rather it shows that the reply has been made accurately before this court.

Mr. Deb, learned counsel quite surprisingly has referred one inter-office communication between the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Esstt.) and the Superintendent of Police under No.9289/F.34/SP(CMN)/RSV/H-PAY/2018 dated 03.07.2018 [Annexure-R/5 to the writ petition]. By the said communication, the fixation of pay and the benefit of grade pay has been urged to be re-examined by the competent authority of the wireless organisation. It is a mere recommendation for re-examining whether there is any defect in the fixation of pay in different phases, including the incidence of fixation when a person namely Monoranjan Biswas got the benefit of ACP-3 with the grade pay of Rs.2,800/-. On 01.04.2017, while Monoranjan Biswas was getting a sum of Rs.42,560/-, Sameer Ghosh as referred earlier, used to get Rs.45,930/-. It has been contended by the Superintendent of Police by dint of that communication that there cannot be possible reason why such discrepancies would occur. But in the case in hand the petitioner has failed to satisfy this court that how he is entitled to further up-gradation of scale under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) as provided by Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 2009. Rule 10(1) of the ROP Rules stipulates that under the new scheme (ACP), all Government employees in the 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 got three benefits of scale up gradations including promotions. In case of PB-4, the employees borne in the Grade Pay of Rs.3700/- (against the pre-revised scale of Rs.7800-15,100/-), under the Grade Pay of Rs. 4500/- (against the pre-revised scale of Rs.10,000-15,100/) and the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- (against the pre-revised scale of Rs.10,650-15,850/-) would be entitled to get 3, 2 and 1 financial up gradations respectively under the scheme, provided the concerned employee had not got scale up-gradation including promotion to 3, 2 & 1 [the scales] already. The other modalities have also been provided in the rules, but those are not presently required to be referred to, as those are relevant in the context.

It is apparent that the petitioner got his first promotion in the post of Head Constable on 20.07.2000. Earlier the petitioner got his CAS-1 on 01.01.2000 and he got the subsequent promotion to the post of Wireless Operator on 26.07.2004 and thus he has consumed three financial up-gradation including the up-gradation under Career Advancement Scheme(CAS) in terms of Rule 10 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, ROP Rules, 1999, in short. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to further advancement including the stepping up. It is apparent from the narrative, as provided by the respondents in the reply that scales of the other two persons were upgraded to ACP-3. Therefore, instances of those two persons are not at all relevant for purpose of the petitioner's up-gradation or stepping up.

Having observed thus, this court does not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.