Sankar Bhowmik And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

(I) It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to issue Rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why the respondents should not transmit all records relating to the case of the petitioners.

(II) As to why a Writ in the nature of certiorari should not be issued quashing the clarification vide No. F.1(5)-FIN(PC)/2009 dated 4th September, 2012 issued by the Government of Tripura, Finance Department (Annexure-I) disentitling the petitioners from 3rd ACP under the Tripura State Civil Services (Reserved Pay) Rules, 2009 and Order vide No. F.6(1- 16)-DYAS/E/01 (L) dated 10.03.2014 issued by the respondent No. 3 refusing the grant pay scale of Rs. 5,500-10,700/- to the petitioners.

(III) As to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents to refund the money illegally deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioners in pursuance to the aforesaid clarification in Annexure-I and to pay monthly pension on the basis of original fixation prior to the said impugned clarification.

(IV) As to why such other order/orders should not be passed so as to give full relief to the petitioners and upon causes shown to make the Rule absolute.

[2] It is true that no formal order, reducing the pay- scale, was ever communicated to the writ petitioners. According to the writ petitioners, this was so done in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and even if, the reduction was a result of the department concluding that the writ petitioners were not entitled to the benefits of 3rd ACP, even then, some opportunity of hearing ought to have been afforded.

[3] Before us it is not indispute that no such opportunity was ever afforded. Equally, reasons for such reduction were never assigned or communicated to the writ petitioners. They may be lying in the record of the respondents, but then, in the case of such a nature where the benefits stood accorded and the petitioners benefited therefrom, any reduction or withdrawal thereof, ought to have been with prior notice and affording an opportunity to the writ petitioners to object, explain or put across their view point. The reduction of pay and recovery of amount entails several consequences, violating principles of natural justice.

[4] It is in this backdrop, we are in agreement with Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners that a direction be issued to the respondents to afford an opportunity to the writ petitioners for taking appropriate action in the matter. For which the petitioners shall represent. As such, we dispose of the present writ petition in the following terms:

(a) We hold that the action of the respondents in reducing the pay-scale and recovering the amount is not in accordance with law, to the extent that the principle of natural justice stood violated.

(b) Since the action already stands implemented, we direct the respondent No. 4 (Director, Youth Affairs and Sports) to consider the petitioners' representation which the petitioners' shall be making positively, within two weeks from today.

(c) The said respondent shall positively take a decision thereupon, in accordance with law and more specifically after affording an opportunity of hearing and decide the same positively within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt thereof, by assigning reasons which shall also be communicated to the writ petitioners. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits and it shall be open for the said respondent to take decision with regard thereto.

(d) Liberty reserved to the writ petitioners to take appropriate action, if so required and desired, on the same and subsequent cause of action.

In view of above, the present petition stands disposed with the above terms.