IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
Nirmalendu Mukherjee – Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura and Anr. – Respondent
Decided On: 01.04.2009
Seniority - Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board - ROP Rules 1988, ROP Rules 1999 - The court discussed the seniority list of Supervisors, promotions to the post of Assistant Organisor (Extension), and the revised pay scales under ROP Rules 1988 and ROP Rules 1999. The court highlighted the equivalence of the posts of Assistant District Development Officer (ADDO) and Assistant Organisor (AO) and the revision of their pay scales under ROP Rules 1999. The court emphasized the principle of non-discrimination in pay revision and the need for parity in pay scales for equivalent posts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner joined the Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board in 1974 and challenged the promotion of his juniors to the post of Assistant Organisor (AO) and Assistant District Development Officer (ADDO) with retrospective effect.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Finance Department's decision to allow a lower revised pay scale for ADDO compared to AO was unreasonable, unjust, and prejudicial to a section of employees. The court directed the respondents to revise the pay scale of ADDO to be equivalent to the revised pay scale of AO.
Issues: The issues revolved around the seniority list, promotions, and revised pay scales for equivalent posts under ROP Rules 1988 and ROP Rules 1999.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle of non-discrimination in pay revision and the need for parity in pay scales for equivalent posts.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to revise the pay scale of ADDO to be equivalent to the revised pay scale of AO.
T.N.K. Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. A short factual panorama, for deciding the present writ petition, is recapitulated as under:
The petitioner joined the service under the Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board ('Board') on 28.12.1974 and as per the inter se final seniority list of the Supervisors prepared by the Board as on 1.11.1981, the name of the petitioner was appeared at Sl. No. 1. One Shri Amal Krishna Ghosh, whose name appeared at Sl. No. 7 of the said Final seniority list of the Supervisors as on 1.11.1981, was promoted to the post of Assistant Organisor (Extension) ('AO') by a letter dated 29.7.1987. Shri C.R. Dasgupta, whose name appeared at Sl. No. 5 in the said final seniority list of the Supervisors, challenged the said appointment of Sri Amal Krishna Ghosh to the post of AO by filing a writ petition being C.R. No. 211 of 1996 before this Court and by a judgment and order dated 8.7.1997 this Court allowed the writ petition directing the Board to promote Shri C.R. Dasgupta to the post of AO from the date on which his junior Shri Amal Krishna Ghosh was promoted, i.e., from 29.7.1987. Pursuant to the said judgment and order of this Court dated 8.7.1997 passed in C.R. No. 211 of 1996, the authority issued a Memorandum under reference No. TKB/2(235)/81-82/379-86, dated 18.05.1998, whereby the seniority list of the Supervisors as on 1.11.1981 stood modified to the extent mentioned in the Memorandum. Later on, Shri Tapan Kumar Shil and Shri Rabindra Poddar filed the writ petition bearing C.R. No. 321 of 1998 for a direction to give effect of their promotions to the post of AO with effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted and this Court allowed the said writ petition by a judgment arid order dated 27.09.1999. In compliance of the said judgment and order dated 27.09.1999 passed in C.R. No. 321 of 1998, the Board by issuing an order gave effect of promotions to the petitioners (the petitioners of C.R. No. 321 of 1998) to the posts of AO w.e.f. 29.7.1982.
3. It is also stated that the post of Assistant District Development Officer ('ADDO') is equivalent to the post of AO. The petitioner was promoted by an order dated 26.06.1987 to the post of ADDO from the Supervisor, but his juniors whose names appeared in the inter se final seniority list of the Supervisors as on 1.11.1981 at Sl. Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 were promoted to the post of AO by issuing a subsequent order by giving retrospective promotion w.e.f. 29.7.1982. Admittedly, prior to the coming into force of ROP Rules 1988, the post of AO and ADDO were of equal pay scales of Rs.1,450 - 3,710, i.e. the revised pay scales under ROP Rules 1988 and the feeder posts of both the posts, i.e., ADDO and AO are the Supervisors. Under ROP Rules 1999, the existing pay scale, i.e., Rs.1,450 - 3,710 was revised to Rs.5,000 - 10,300 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. It is the admitted fact that the pay scale for the post of AO, i.e., Rs.1,450 - 3,710 (revised pay scale under ROP Rules 1988) was revised to Rs.5,000 - 10,300 under ROP Rules 1999 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The relevant portion of the revised pay scales under ROP Rules 1999 is quoted herein below:
Existing Scales of pay Detailed Break up Revised Scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996 Detailed break up
1 2 3 4
9.1450-60-1930-65-2450-70-3710 1450-1510-1570-1630-1690-1750-1810-1870-1930-1995-2060-2125-2190-2255-2320-2385-2450-2520-2590-2660-2730-2800-2870-2940-3010-3080-3150-3220-3290-3360-3430-3500-3570-3640-3710 10.5000-130-6690-150-8940-170-10300 5000-5130-5260-5390-5520-5650-5780-5910-6040-6170-6300-6430-6560-6690-6840-6990-7140-7290-7440-7590-7740-7890-8040-8190-8340-8490-8640-8790-8940-9110-9280-9450-9620-9790-9960-10130-10300
But the pay scale for the post of ADDO, enjoying scale of pay of the AO, i.e., Rs.1,450 - 3,710, was revised to Rs.4,200 - 8,650 by the Finance Department for p
Bir Singh Chauhan v. State of Haryana and Anr. (1997) 6 SCC 282
Roshan Deen v. Preet Lal (2002) 1 SCC 100
State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683
State of U.P. and Ors. v. U.P. State Sale Tax Officers Grade-II Assn. (2003) 6 SCC 250
State of Mizoram and Anr. v. Mizoram Engineering Service Assn. and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 218
Indian Overseas Bank v. Staff Canteen Workers Union (2000) 4 SCC 245:2000 SCC (L&S) 471
Union of India v. S.S. Vohra (2004) 2 SCC 150:2004 SCC (L&S) 363
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.