AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. Facts being substantially similar, we may record the facts of WP(C) No.660 of 2017. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) in the Public Works Department, State of Tripura in the year 1997. The services of the petitioners were regularized and they were encadred in Grade-V(B) of Tripura Engineering Service as Diploma Holder, Junior Engineer. According to the petitioners, as per the Rule 30 of the Tripura Engineering Service Rules, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred to as TES Rule, 1987‟), upon completion of 8(eight) years of service as Junior Engineer Grade-V(B), the employee would be entitled to be placed in the higher scale of Rs.7,450/- - 13,000/- under Career Advancement Scheme-I (hereinafter to be referred to as CAS-I). The petitioners would further point out that TES Rules, 1987 were amended by 7th Amendment Rules, 2014 w.e.f. 10.06.2014 which provided that Diploma Holder TES Grade-V(B) Engineers would be granted movement in the next scale of pay of Rs.9,570/- - 30,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.3500/- on completion of 10 (ten) years of service. According to the petitioners, since they had completed 8(eight) years of regular service prior to this amendment, their case would be governed by pre-amended Rule 30 of TES Rules, 1987. With such a plea, the petitioners first approached the Government. When their request was not granted, they filed the present petition.
The respondents have filed affidavit and opposed the petition. They have mainly contended that upon implementation of Tripura Civil Service (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred to as ROP, 2009‟), previous Scheme of Career Advancement was replaced by Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP‟, for short) which envisages that benefit of higher pay scale would be available to an employee upon completion of 10(ten) years of continuous and satisfactory service without promotion. Respondents, therefore, argue that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of CAS-I under TES Rules, 1987. Instead the petitioners can claim the benefit of ACP under ROP, 2009 and consequently, could be granted the benefit of higher pay scale only after completion of 10(ten) years of continuous service. The respondents also point out that the petitioners were given an option to be governed by the pay fixation under ROP, 2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The petitioners had duly exercised such an option. The petitioners now cannot argue that for the purpose of Career Advancement, they would be governed by TES, 1987 Rules.
Facts in the connected petition being WP(C) No.663 of 2017 are similar. They, therefore, are not recorded in detail. It is not necessary to enter into detailed discussion on the rival contentions since entire issue is squarely covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.46 of 2014 and connected appeals in case of State of Tripura and others Vrs. Sri Ajit Chakraborty and others decided on 28.05.2019. The issue similar to one that arises in the present petition was presented before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge having allowed the petition, the State had preferred writ appeals. The appeals were allowed by the judgment in question. The Court held and observed as under:-
"25. However, sometime in the year 2009, the Government took a decision to again revamp the "Pay Rules" and on 05.05.2009, notified the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (referred to as the "Revised Pay Rules") to be effective from 01.01.2006. These rules, by virtue of Rule 2, were to apply to persons appointed in regular scales of pay to services and posts in connection with affairs of the State Government of Tripura, subject to certain exceptions with which we are not concerned. The State contends that petitioners do fall within this category, and, in our considered view rightly so.
By virtue of Rule 5, save as otherwise provided in these rules, Government employees are to draw their pay in the revised pay structure applicable to the posts to which they stand appointed. However, by virtue of the proviso contained in the said rule, as also Rule 6, employees could exercise their option of continuing with the existing pay scale or the revised pay scale as notified in terms of "Revised Pay Rules". Most importantly, about which fact there is no dispute, none of the petitioners ever exercised such option, expressing their desire to continue with the old pay structure under the "Revised Service Rules" and as such, by virtue of the deeming provision [sub-rule (3) of Rule 6], they got themselves elected to be governed by these rules w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
In terms of these "Revised Pay Rules", existing system of CAS-I was replaced with the new scheme, titled as "Assured Career Progression" (ACP) Scheme, entitling all Government employees to three financial upgradations (10, 7, 8 years) unlike CAS-I which provided for (10, 7, 7 years). By virtue of Rule 18, all old provisions and more specifically, relating to CAS/ACP, stood repealed. 28. It is in this backdrop, we now proceed to discuss the petitioners‟ case. The "Service Rules", till the time they stood amended by virtue of "5th Amendment Service Rules", categorically empowered the Government to change the pay scales from time to time, which of course, had to be in accordance with law. Prudently, the Government thought it appropriate to bring in a set of unified rules, dealing with the pay scales of most of its employees, including the petitioners, separately notified as the "Pay Rules" as amended from time to time.
It was in the year 1999 such decision was taken with the first of such rules being notified on 06.02.1999, though w.e.f. 01.01.1996. It is in line of such events and the legislative backdrop that by virtue of the 5th Amendment, the Government decided to amend Rule 30 of "Service Rules" which categorically provided for the pay scale of the Junior Engineers. The petitioners not having exercised their option and without laying any challenge to the 5th Amendment Rules, subjected themselves to be governed by the "Pay Rules", 2009 entitling themselves to the benefit of ACP instead of CAS-I.
Most crucially, petitioners cannot be held entitled to the benefit of CAS-I either on the basis of parity or otherwise, also for the reason that as on 01.01.1996, the date of the 15th Amendment, petitioners had not completed their 8(eight) years of regular service in a regular pay scale. To contend that such amendment was made effective retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1996, thus ipso facto making them entitled to the benefit of CAS-I, without completing 8(eight) years of service, is legally impermissible. 15th Amendment nowhere provided that such of those persons who had not completed 8(eight) years of regular service would also be entitled to the benefit of CAS-I. It is in this backdrop, petitioners‟ case was dispassionately considered and their request of being considered at par with the Junior Engineers appointed in the year 1990, rightly turned down by the Government.
Repetitively, we reiterate that petitioners had not exercised their option of being continued to be governed under the "Service Rules" for the purposes of pay scale and other allowances. Not only that, they continued to take benefit under the "Pay Rules" revised from time to time by the Government and only at a belated stage, which remains unexplained, did the petitioners rather belatedly, raise their demand.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in paragraph-16 of the impugned judgment to be absolutely erroneous. We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned Advocate General on this count.
Though the learned Single Judge dismissed the petitioners‟ prayer for entitlement of pay scale in terms of "Service Rules", yet granted benefit of CAS-I under the very same "Pay Rules" which was wholly impermissible in law, rendering the view taken to be absolutely perverse and illegal, warranting intervention by this Court.
Hence, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in case No. WP(C) 266 of 2013, titled as Shri Ajit Chakraborty & others vrs. The State of Tripura & others. Accordingly, appeal filed by the State-respondents is hereby allowed.
Claims based on similar facts are legally not sustainable and as such, WP(C) No.316/2012, titled as Shri Sourav Reang & others vrs. The State of Tripura & others, need to be dismissed and, accordingly, we do so.
Resultantly, both the appeal and writ petition stand disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."
In the result, these petitions are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.