Suman Saha vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

[1] Petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents of placing him in fixed salary regime at the time of his appointment for a period of five years before granting regular pay scale. Failing this prayer, the petitioner has also raised an issue of such fixed remuneration not being adequate. According to the petitioner such remuneration cannot be less than the minimum of the entry level scale of the post on which the petitioner was appointed.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The father of the petitioner was engaged as a pump operator on fixed pay basis. Before he was regularized in Government service, he expired. Under a die-in-harness scheme framed by the State Government, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 14.01.2008. The post in question carried a scale of pay of Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/-. The petitioner was however offered fixed pay of Rs.2145/- per month which would be revised later on. This arrangement would continue for five years as per the Government policy before the petitioner would be brought over to regular scale attached to the post of Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner accepted the appointment, worked as Lower Division Clerk and upon completion of five years was also granted regular scale of pay in the year 2013. Several years later the petitioner filed a writ petition in the year 2017 and questioned placing him in the fixed pay basis at the time of his initial appointment in the year 2008. This petition was withdrawn on 04.05.2018 with a liberty to file a fresh petition upon which the present petition has been filed.

[3] Appearing for the petitioner learned counsel Ms R. Purkayastha contended that :

(i) the petitioner was appointed in a die-in-harness scheme. The petitioner had cited many instances where Government had appointed several persons under the said scheme on regular scale from inception. The petitioner was discriminated. She contended that die-in-harness scheme is a universal scheme framed by the Government and there cannot be any further bifurcation of persons being appointed under such scheme for the purpose of grant of pay scales.

(ii) That the Government of Tripura scheme for fixed remuneration initially for a period of five years, ignores the principle of equal pay for equal work since such monthly remuneration is lower than the entry level scale of the post in question.

[4] On the other hand Mr. D. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition contending that the instances cited by the petitioner are only for the clerks of Secretariat staff which forms an entirely different cadre and the recruitments are made through TPSC. Government policy of engaging Group-C and D staff initially for a period of five years on fixed salary basis specifically excludes those posts on which appointments are to be made through TPSC. He further submitted that the Government has framed a scheme for appointment of Group-C and D employees initially for a period of five years on fixed salary by keeping the regular post in abeyance. The rates of remuneration for such engagement are revised from time to time.

[5] Coming to the first contention of the counsel for the petitioner, it may be recalled that the petitioner was appointed in die-in-harness scheme on the post of LDC. Long before the petitioner was so appointed, the Government of Tripura had framed a policy under OM dated 15.12.2001 for engaging Group-C and D staffs initially for a period of five years on fixed salary basis. This scheme itself provided that such of the appointments to Group-C and D posts would be on fixed pay which are not required to be filled up by selection through TPSC. The petitioner may have been engaged under a die-in-harness scheme, nevertheless he was being appointed on a Government post. His appointment therefore was correctly done in terms of the said policy. Counsel for the petitioner is not correct in contending that such policy of engaging Group-C and D staff initially for a period of five years on fixed salary basis would not apply to an appointee under die-in-harness scheme. Under die-in-harness scheme a person gets offer of appointment without competing with other eligible candidates and may also qualify for other relaxations. Nevertheless, the appointment eventually is made on a Government post and would therefore be governed by the prevailing Government policies.

[6] The petitioner comparing himself with the staff of Secretariat of pay parity also is not a valid comparison. The respondents have filed the detailed reply clarifying that the clerical staff of the Secretariat on which appointment in die-in-harness was made on regular pay scales, is done through TPSC. The Government policy itself excludes those Group-C and D employees from engagement on fixed salary basis that are to be recruited through TPSC.

[7] Coming to the petitioner's grievance about inadequate remuneration in the fixed salary basis, the entire issue is an old one. This is not a matter of pay scale which can be seen as a repairing issue. The petitioner was engaged in the year 2008. His fixed salary tenure also came to be completed in 2013. His first approach to the High Court was in the year 2017. I would not like to open such old issues after a distant point of time. In any case, it is a matter of wider policy considerations and larger reparations which can be examined in a proper case.

[8] In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.