Rajib Kumar Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And 7 Others

Arindam Lodh, J

Heard Mr. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State and Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing for the respondent-Accountant General (for short “AG”, Tripura).

The simple fact of the instant case is that the petitioner was paid CAS-I after completion of 8 years of his service. The petitioner went on voluntary retirement in the year 2020. Thereafter, while fixing his pensionary benefits, the AG, Tripura had informed the respondents-State that CAS-I was illegally given to the petitioner since the petitioner was entitled to CAS-I after completion of 17 years of service.

The State ROP Rules which was applicable to the petitioner prescribes that all the government employees shall be entitled to CAS-I after completion of 8 years of service. In view of this, the decision of the respondent-AG, Tripura is totally wrong and contrary to the ROP Rules, 2009.

In view of this, I hold that awarding of CAS-I to the petitioner after completion of 8 years of service is in accordance with ROP Rules framed by the State of Tripura. The decision of the AG, Tripura, as I have held earlier, is wrong and contrary to the ROP Rules and the impugned order dated 04.11.2020 stands quashed wherein AG, Tripura held that the petitioner was not entitled to CAS-I after 8 years of service but, entitled to CAS-I after 17 years of service.

The respondents are directed to make re-fixation of the petitioner’s pay and allowances holding that the granting of CAS-I in favour of the petitioner after completion of 8 years of service was correct within a period of 3 months from today. The petitioner also would be entitled to all other consequential financial benefits.

With the aforesaid observations and direction, the instant writ petition stands allowed and thus disposed.