THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Rajib Nag & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 561 of 2010
Date of hearing: 03.07.2015
CASI - Absorption of Assistant Commandant of TSR in TPS Grade-II - Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Commandant Tripura State Rifles, 1998, Tripura Police Service Rules, 1967, ROP Rules, 1999 - The judgment discusses the equivalence of posts, pay scales, and the counting of past services for the purpose of financial benefits under the ROP Rules, 1999. It highlights the interpretation of the rules and their application in granting CASI to the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Commandant of TSR and later absorbed in TPS Grade-II. They sought CASI under ROP Rules, 1999 for their past services, which was denied by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The rejection of the petitioners' claim for CASI based on their past services as Assistant Commandant of TSR was deemed irrational and unjustified by the court.
Issues: The main issue was the eligibility of the petitioners for CASI based on their past services as Assistant Commandant of TSR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the past services of the petitioners in the post of Assistant Commandant of TSR should be counted as continuous services for all purposes, including the purpose of financial benefits under ROP Rules, 1999.
Final Decision: The communication denying CASI to the petitioners was deemed illegal and set aside. The respondents were directed to grant CASI to the petitioners on their completion of four years of service, taking into account their services as Assistant Commandant in TSR, and to grant them the specified pay scale within 90 days.
Heard learned counsel, Mr. D. K. Das Choudhury along with learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel, Mr. S. Deb, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. D. C. Nath for the respondents.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 21.04.2002 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant of Tripura State Rifles (for short 'TSR”), the petitioners were selected by TPSC and consequent to such selection, respondent No.4, the Director General of Police by Office Order issued on 04.11.2004 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) appointed the petitioners to the posts of Assistant Commandant, TSR Battalion. The appointments were made as per the provisions of the rules, namely, Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Commandant Tripura State Rifles, 1998. The Tripura Police Service Rules, 1967 (for short ‘TPS Rules, 1967’), after amendment, prescribes provision for absorption of Assistant Commandant of TSR to the post of Tripura Police Service (for short ‘TPS’) Grade-II.
3. The State-respondent by issuing Memo dated 12.06.2006 (Annexure6 to the writ petition) invited option from the eligible officers working in ex-cadre posts, including Assistant Commandant of TSR, to absorb in the post of TPS Grade-II and accordingly, all the petitioners exercised their options and having found them eligible, by Notification dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), all the petitioners were absorbed in the Cadre of TPS Grade-II.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the posts of Assistant Commandant of TSR and TPS Grade-II were equivalent post having prescribed same and identical pay scales as per the service rules as well as the ROP Rules, 1999 and since the ROP Rules, 1999 prescribes CASI after four years of service, the petitioners claimed CASI and submitted their representations for granting them CASI taking into account their services as Assistant Commandant in TSR, but the respondents by issuing Memo dated 05.03.2010 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) turned down the claim of the petitioners contending that the services rendered by the petitioners as Assistant Commandant of TSR were not permissible to be counted as part of TPS Cadre service and hence, they were not provided the benefit of ACP. By filing this writ petition the petitioners challenged that Notification dated 05.03.2010 and prayed for directing the respondents to grant them CASI on their completion of four years of service.
5. The respondents contended that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Commandant of TSR on 04.11.2004. They were absorbed in TPS Grade-II, i.e., the Cadre service on 15.11.2006. They were supposed to complete four years of continuous service in the TPS Cadre for having the benefit of CASI. Since they did not complete four years of service in the Cadre of TPS Grade-II, their claim was rejected by issuing Memo dated 05.03.2010. There was nothing wrong in the action taken by the State-respondents and the writ petition should be dismissed.
6. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were all appointed as Assistant Commandant of TSR as per the Recruitment Rules of 1998. The pay scale prescribed in the Rules for the post of Assistant Commandant was Rs.2100-3000-5000/-. Prerevised scale of TPS Grade-II was also exactly same as that of the Assistant Commandant of TSR.
7. Annexure-C of ROP Rules 1999 prescribes existing and revised pay scale of various posts, wherein at heading 'D' the pay scale of Tripura State Rifles Battalion has been prescribed. Therein in Item No.3, the pay scale of Assistant Commandant has been prescribed same as for TPS. The scale has not been mentioned, but the word ‘TPS’ has been mentioned in Column Nos.3 and 4, and thereby it is made clear that the pay scale of TPS Grade-II shall be applicable to the Assistant Commandant of TSR.
8. Annexure-B in Item No.9, the pay scale of Tripura Police Service has been prescribed. For TPS Grade-II, prerevised pay scale was Rs.2100-3000/- and the revi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.