Maloy Deb And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

[2] These writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.298 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.299 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.308 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.309 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.310 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.311 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.312 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.313 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.314 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.315 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.316 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.317 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.318 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.319 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.320 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.321 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.322 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.323 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No.294 of 2019 are combined for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as in the similar perspective fact, the writ petitioners have urged this court to quash or set aside the PHQ office order No.11765-69/ACCTTS(164)/PHQ/99 dated 11.03.2000 [Annexure-2 to the lead case being W.P.(C) No.298 of 2018 Maloy Deb vs. State of Tripura & Ors.]. It has been further urged to direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners in the scale of pay of Rs.4200-8650/- as per Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay] Rules, 1999 [the ROP Rules, 1999 in short] corresponding to the Pay Scale of Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2100/-, modified to the Pay Band-2 [Rs.5700-24000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-] as per the Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay] [12th Amendment] Rules, 2015 on completion of their 10 years of service in the grade of Lower Division Clerk [LDC] under the Home department and to pay the arrear pay and allowances in terms thereof within a time frame. So far the basic facts relating to the service particulars of the petitioners are concerned, there is no dispute. The core grievance of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed in the scale of Rs.970-2400/-, as revised to Rs.3300- 7100/- by operation of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999. As the petitioners were stagnated in the said pay scale for 10 years and did not get any promotion in the meanwhile, their pay was fixed to Rs.4000-7890/- in terms of Career Advancement Scheme [CAS] as provided under Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999. According to the petitioners they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.4200-8650/- which is the pay scale of the Upper Division Clerk [UDC] after completion of 10 years of satisfactory service without promotion in the post of LDC. According to the provision of 10 (b) of ROP Rules, 1999, the employees entering by direct recruitment in the existing scales No.4 to 10 or the revised scale No.5 to 11 or corresponding earlier scale will have two scale advancement in the next higher scales as per the table provided in Annexure-A at the end of 10 and 7 years of satisfactory and continuous service in the entry scale and higher scale of promotion/gradation or advancement respectively, as the case may be, to the higher scale unless they get promoted to the higher scale before the prescribed period. But the petitioners were not given the said scale of Rs.4200-8650/- on their completion of 10 years of satisfactory and continuous service in the grade of LDC.

[3] The respondents by the officer order dated 11.03.2000 [Annexure-2 to the lead case] have observed while disposing the representation of the petitioner of the lead case as follows:

"In pursuance of Rule 10 of ROP Rules, 1999 pay of Sri Maloy Deb, Lower Division Clerk of Police Head Quarters, Agartala [now attached to the Dy. IG of Police (Trg's Office) is hereby fixed at Rs.4110/- on 19.02.2000 in the higher grade scale of Rs.4000-7890/- applying FR 22(a) (i) with DNI on 01.02.2001 on completion of 10 years of service in the same post/scale."

Being aggrieved by denial of the pay scale of Rs.4200-8650/-, almost all the petitioners filed the representation to the Director General of Police, Tripura [Annexure-7 to the lead case] urging to provide them the scale of Rs.4200-8650/-, which is the promotional scale, after completion of 10 years of satisfactory and continuous service as LDC as per Rule 10(b) of ROP, Rules, 1999 and to fix their pay in the promotional post of UDC providing protection of pay as per FR 22 (I) (a) (1) otherwise, they would suffer detriment. Since no positive yield came forth the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents by filing this batch of writ petitions.

[4] Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the purpose of Rule 10(b) was to wipe out the stagnation created for non-promotion. It is well settled that in every service there should be at least two promotions and when the employees cannot be provided promotions as legitimately expected for absence of adequate vacancies, the benefits through scale upgradation remain the only alternative to give relief to the incumbents. Hence, after 10 years of service, by giving a dynamic interpretation of Rule 10(b) of the ROP Rules, 1999, the petitioners be provided scale upgradation to Rs.4200-8650/- revised as PB-2 [Rs.5310-24000/-] with GP Rs.2800/-. Since they are claim to that extent has not been acceded to, this court may interfere and direct the respondents to release such benefit.

[5] The respondents by filing the reply have contended that according to the scheme, [Rule 10] of the ROP Rules, 1999 the scale up-gradation would be made as per the table as provided in Annexure-'A' to the said Rules, 1999. As per the said table, the next scale above the scale of Rs.3300-7100/- is Rs.4000-7890/-. The said pay scale of Rs.4000-7890/- can only be provided to the petitioners when they are given benefit of CAS-1. Thus, there is no irregularity in upgrading the petitioners' scale to Rs.4000-7890/- on completion of 10 years of service in the grade of LDC.

[6] Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has stated that the controversy of this nature has been resolved by this court in Sri Suvarun Datta vs. State of Tripura & Ors. [the common judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 delivered in W.P.(C) No.99 of 2019 and other analogous matters] and also in Dhananjoy Das vs. State of Tripura and Ors. [the common judgment and order dated 03.01.2020 delivered in WP(C) No.97 of 2019 and other analogous matters].

[7] Having perused these judgments, it is found that upgradation of the scale in terms of the table at Annexure-A of the ROP Rules, 1999 has been upheld. But the facts of those cases are quite distinguishable from the cases in hand.

[8] Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and being entrenched with the provisions of Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999 and the changes that has been brought into in Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 2009, this court is of the view that there is no scope of interpretation inasmuch as Rule 10(a) intrinsically provides that the employees entering by direct recruitment in the scale-1 as per statement at Annexure-A or corresponding scale earlier will have 3 scale advancements at the end of 10 years, 7 years and further 7 years of continuous and satisfactory service in the scale 1,2 & 3 to the scale 2,3 & 4 respectively unless they get promoted to a post of higher scale before the period at each stage whereas Rule 10(b) of the ROP Rules, 1999 provides that the employees entering by direct recruitment in the existing scales No.4 to 10 or revised scales No.5 to 11 or corresponding earlier scales will have 2 scale advancements in the next higher scales as per table in Annexure-A at the end of 10 years and 7 years of continuous and satisfactory service in the entry scale and higher scale of promotion/gradation or advancement respectively, as the case may, to the higher scale unless they get promoted to higher scale before the prescribed period at each stage. The said provisions have merged in Rule 10 of ROP Rules, 2009 where it has been provided that all government employees in PB-1,2 & 3 shall be entitled to get a maximum of 3 financial upgradations, the 1st 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 have not got up to 3 benefits of scale upgradation including promotion already. In case of PB-4, the employees borne under the Grade Pay Rs.3700/- [against the revised scale of pay Rs.7800-15100/-], under Grade Pay of Rs.4500/- [against pre revised scale of Rs.10000-15100/-] and Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- [against pre revised Rs.10650-15850/-] would be entitled to get 3, 2 and 1 financial upgrdation respectively under the scheme, provided the concerned employee has not got scale upgrdation including promotion upto 3,2 & 1 respectively already. It has been followed by ancillary rules and in Rule 10(4) it has been provided that the government employees who had completed 10 years of service before 01.01.2006 but has not got or consumed any benefit of promotion/scale upgradation under revised pay rules, framed in the past by the State Government from time to time, they will now be provided the benefit of first ACP from the date of his coming over to the revised pay structure under the ROP Rules, 2009. The similar benefit would also be extended to those who have completed 17 years or 25 years under ROP Rules, 2009.

[9] The claim of the petitioners who were/are holding the post of LDC is that their first upgradation after 10 years of satisfactory and continuous service be made to the pay scale of Rs.4200-8650/-. A keen reading of Rule 10(b) of ROP Rules, 1999 would take logically to the conclusion that the petitioners who were holding the post of LDC for more than 10 years without promotion would get the first upgradation to the pay scale of Rs.4000-7890/- not to the pay scale of Rs.4200-8650/- as per the pay scale mentioned in Annexure-A of ROP Rules, 1999. Hence, the claim of the petitioners' for upgradation to the scale of Rs.4200-8650/- cannot be acceded to under the scheme of CAS or ACP [Assured Career Progression] as provided respectively under Rule 10 of ROP Rules, 1999 and Rule 10 of ROP Rules, 2009 as modified from time to time.

[10] Having observed thus, these writ petitions stand dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.