Inconsistent employment statuses disallow consideration for pay stepping up; claims must adhere to specific statutory provisions and conditions.

ORDER

1. These petitions arise in common background and involve similar facts. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we may refer to facts from WP(C) No. 1256 of 2019.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Post Graduate) in a Grant-in-Aid School on 14.02.2007. As per the Government policy initially for a period of five years, he was granted fixed pay @ Rs.3,250/-per month. After completion of the period of five years, he was brought over to the regular scales. Under ROP 2009, he was granted the benefit of First Assured Career Progression referred to as ACP-I upon completion of 10 years of service without promotion. Accordingly, by an order dated 20.05.2017 he was granted benefit of first ACP with effect from 16.02.2017 i.e. 10 years from the date of his joining the service. Before grant of this benefit, the petitioner was drawing basic salary of Rs. 34,930/- with a Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. Upon grant of ACP-I, the basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.37,060/- with a Grade Pay of Rs.4400/-. Pursuant to the Revision of Pay Scales under Tripura State Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter to be referred to as ROP 2018) the basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.43,600/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4400/-.

3. The petitioner would point out that three persons, namely, Sri Prasanta Sutradhar, Smt. Purnima Chowdhury and Sri Swapan Majumder had joined as Assistant Teachers on 01.08.2007 i.e. after the date of the joining of the petitioner. These persons junior to the petitioner were drawing less pay than the petitioner till the stage the petitioner was granted the benefit of ACP-I. The case of the petitioner is that these juniors were granted the benefit of Career Progression in the month of August, 2017 upon which their basic pay was fixed at Rs. 37,390/- (at which point of time the petitioner's basic pay was Rs.37,060/-) and after implementation of ROP 2018 basic pay of these juniors were fixed at Rs.45,200/- (and that of the petitioner at Rs.43,600/-).

4. According to the petitioner, this is a clear case of anomaly since the persons junior to the petitioner are drawing more salary than the petitioner and this pay anomaly has arisen on account of grant of the benefit of Assured Career Progression. The petitioner, therefore, urges that such anomaly be removed by stepping up the pay of the petitioner to the level of the juniors in terms of State of Tripura rules, regulations and instructions. The facts of other petitioners are identical and are therefore not separately recorded. These petitioners also joined the service as teachers in Grant-in-Aid Schools on or around the same day as the petitioner of WP(C) No. 1256 of 2019. They also refer to the same set of teachers who joined in Government service after them and who upon being granted the benefit of First Career Progression are drawing higher basic salary than them.

5. The prayer of the petitioners is strongly opposed by the Government. A detailed affidavit in reply was filed on 14.05.2020 in which the stand taken is that the petitioners are employed in Grant-in-Aid Schools and the persons whom the petitioners refer to as their juniors are Government teachers. Therefore, the petitioners and the so called juniors do not belong to the same cadre. The fundamental requirement for stepping up of the pay to remove pay anomaly, namely, that the senior and junior must both belong to the same cadre is not fulfilled.

6. The respondents have also pointed out that the petitioners were granted the benefit of ACP-I in terms of the then applicable ROP 2009. Accordingly, the petitioners in ad