Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
N.G.Das, J.
Tripura Government Employees Federation -Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 525 of 1995
Decided On : 07-02-1996
DEARNESS ALLOWANCE - PAYMENT - ACCEPTANCE OF RECOMMENDATION - LEGAL RIGHT - ESTOPPEL - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS - PAYMENT IN INSTALMENTS - DEPOSIT IN GENERAL PROVIDENT FUND - WITHDRAWAL AFTER THREE YEARS. 1. Acceptance of the recommendation of the Pay Commission by the State Government for payment of Dearness Allowance at the Central rates without any reservation confers a legal right on the employees to get the Dearness Allowance at the Central rates. 2. The State Government is estopped from denying the payment of Dearness Allowance at the Central rates as it induced a reasonable belief to its employees that they would be getting Dearness Allowance at Central rates by its declaration of acceptance of the recommendation. 3. A writ petition is maintainable to enforce the right to Dearness Allowance as it is a justiciable right. 4. Considering the financial constraints faced by the State Government, the unpaid Dearness Allowance may be paid in instalments and deposited in the General Provident Fund of the employees withdrawable in accordance with Rules after expiry of a period of three years from the date of each deposit.
Fact of the Case:
The Government of Tripura constituted a Pay Commission to consider the question of salaries and allowances of Tripura Government employees and recommend pay structure. The Commission recommended payment of Dearness Allowance at the Central rates, which was accepted by the State Government. However, the State Government paid only 92 percent of the Dearness Allowance till 1.10.1995, while the Central Government paid 136 percent. The employees filed a writ petition seeking payment of the unpaid Dearness Allowance.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the acceptance of the recommendation of the Pay Commission by the State Government for payment of Dearness Allowance at the Central rates without any reservation conferred a legal right on the employees to get the Dearness Allowance at the Central rates. The Court also held that the State Government was estopped from denying the payment of Dearness Allowance at the Central rates as it induced a reasonable belief to its employees that they would be getting Dearness Allowance at Central rates by its declaration of acceptance of the recommendation.
Issues: 1. Whether the acceptance of the recommendation of the Pay Commission by the State Government for payment of Dearness Allowance at the Central rates without any reservation conferred a legal right on the employees to get the Dearness Allowance at the Central rates? 2. Whether the State Government is estopped from denying the payment of Dearness Allowance at the Central rates as it induced a reasonable belief to its employees that they would be getting Dearness Allowance at Central rates by its declaration of acceptance of the recommendation? 3. Whether a writ petition is maintainable to enforce the right to Dearness Allowance?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The acceptance of the recommendation of the Pay Commission by the State Government for payment of Dearness Allowance at the Central rates without any reservation conferred a legal right on the employees to get the Dearness Allowance at the Central rates because: (a) The recommendation of the Commission was made after taking into consideration all relevant factors, including the economic condition in the State, the resources of the State Government, and the demands thereon. (b) The State Government accepted the recommendation without any reservation. (c) The employees had discharged their duties and were entitled to the Dearness Allowance as per the recommendation of the Commission. 2. The State Government is estopped from denying the payment of Dearness Allowance at the Central rates as it induced a reasonable belief to its employees that they would be getting Dearness Allowance at Central rates by its declaration of acceptance of the recommendation because: (a) The State Government's declaration of acceptance of the recommendation led the employees to believe that they would be getting Dearness Allowance at Central rates. (b) The employees relied on this belief and continued to discharge their duties. (c) The State Government is now estopped from denying the payment of Dearness Allowance at the Central rates.
Final Decision: The Court directed the State Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission in respect of payment of unpaid Dearness Allowance viz 32 percent in three instalment i.e. the first instalment of 10 percent has to be paid within six months from 1st of March, 1996, the second instalment of 11 percent has to be paid within next six months i.e. within six months starting from 1st of September, 1996 and the third instalment of 11 percent has to be paid within six months from 1st of March, 1997. These amounts may, however, be ordered to be deposited in the General Provident Fund of the employees withdrawable in accordance with Rules after expiry of a period of three years from the date of each deposit.
2. The facts and circumstances under which this case has been filed may, therefore, be briefly stated as under.
3. The Government of Tripura by its notification No.F.3 (1)-FIN (PC)/85 dated 4th of November, 1985 constituted a Pay Commission (Third Pay Commission) to consider the question of salaries and allowances of Tripura Government employees and recommend pay structure. The terms of reference, as modified, required the Commission to consider the cases of anomalies in pay scales of various categories of posts, Dearness Allowance elements, all other emoluments etc. The terms of reference also required the Commission to make recommendations which may be desirable and feasible, keeping in view and having regard to, amongst other relevant factors, the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, the economic condition in the State, the resources of the State Government and demands thereon.
4. To determine the Dearness Allowance the Fourth Central Pay Commission took the year 1960 as the base year equivalent to 100 point being All India Average Price Index. This price index point in the year 1986 was 608 and the Central Pay Commission recommended increase/enhancement of Dearness Allowance by 1 (one) percent over the rise office index per point after 608 and mode of assessment would be 6 (six) monthly payable with the salary for the month of March and September every year having regard to the price index of preceding 12 (twelve) months (Annexure 5). The Central Government accepted the recommendation about payment of Dearness Allowance with modification that the periodicity would be March and September (Annexure 6).
5. Accordingly the Central Government kept proper records of the price index point from time to time and paid its employees the enhanced Dearness Allowance. It is stated that price index point stood at 1454 in April, 1995, 1479 in May, 1995,1509 in June, 1995 and 1543 in July, 1995. The State Government also accepted this position (Annexure 8).
6. The Central Government as per the recommendation of the Central Pay Commission paid 136 percent till 1.10.1995. But the State Government even though accepted the recommendations of the Commission in respect of payment of Dearness Allowances at the central rates, it paid only 92 percent uptil 1.10.1995. The State Government employees were, therefore, deprived of 44 percent till that date. It is further stated that the percentage of price index enhanced upto 153.78 percent but the respondents paid only 92 percent and due to non-payment of Dearness Allowance upto that point a lowest grade employee has been deprived of approximately Rs.540/- per month and an employee having maximum grade of pay scale has been deprived of approximately Rs.2,380/- per month.
7. In the writ petition it has been alleged that even though the petitioner Association submitted repeated representations to the respondents for clearing up the upto datr Dearness Allowances, the respondents did not take any effective steps for payment of upto date Dearness Allowances.
8. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for issuance of a writ Mandamus directing the respondents for payment of the unpaid Dearness Allowances to all its employees.
9. The respondents contested the writ petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has, inter alia, been contended that it is not a fact that the Government of Tripura is not releasing Dearness Allowance to its employees at the rate given by the Central Government. It is, however, admitted that the respondents could not cope up with the per
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
