The court ruled that employees who have not received promotions are entitled to ACP-II and MACP-III benefits, despite clarifications suggesting otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

BISWAJIT PALIT, J.

The present petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs :

i) Issue notice upon the Respondents.

ii) Call for the records.

iii) Issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Petitioners shall not be granted the benefit of ACP-II from the date of completion of 17 years of service upon upgradation to the Post of Junior engineer (Electrical) (Grade-I) along with all arrears of financial benefit.

AND

Issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Petitioners shall not be granted the benefit of MACP-III from the date of completion of another 8 years of service upon grant of ACP-II benefit in terms of the prayer above alongwith all arrears of financial benefit.

AND

Issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why appropriate direction shall not be issued for fixation of pay of the Petitioners upon grant of ACP-II and MACP- III benefits and further issue appropriate Writ to grant the Petitioners arrears of such financial benefit.

iv) And after hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rule absolute.

AND/OR

Pass any other Order/Orders as deemed fit and proper.

AND

For this act of kindness your humble petitioners as in duty bound shall ever remain grateful.

2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. A. Bhaumik appearing for the petitioners and also heard Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. M. Debbarma appearing for the State-respondents.

3. The facts of this writ petition are, in short, is that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) (Grade-II) vide office order dated 03.04.1989 under the PWD (R & B), Government of Tripura on the recommendation of Tripura Public Service Commission in the pay scale of Rs.1450-3710 plus admissible allowances. Thereafter, the petitioners rendered their service to the utmost satisfaction of their authorities.

4. The Finance Department, Government of Tripura issued one addendum on 30.03.1989 wherein it was provided that the Junior Engineer, Grade-II upon completion of their 4(four) years of service in the pay scale of Junior Engineer (Grade-II) will move to the pay scale of Junior Engineer (Grade-I) along with the designation of Junior Engineer (Grade-I). As such, in view of the said addendum dated 30.03.1989, the present petitioners on completion of their 4(four) years of service as Junior Engineer (Electrical) (Grade-II) were designated as Junior Engineer(Grade-I) and accordingly the pay scale of Junior Engineer(Grade-I) i.e. Rs.2100-4530 was extended to the petitioners vide office order dated 31.05.1993 w.e.f. 04.04.1993, 04.04.1993, 12.04.1993 and 04.04.1993 respectively and since then the petitioners were designated as Junior Engineer(Grade- I)(Electrical) and were serving in the said pay scale of Rs.2100-4530 as revised from time to time.

5. According to the petitioners, on up-gradation to the pay scale of Rs.2100-4530, the petitioners were treated as CAS-I consumed by them. But after extension of the pay scale of the Junior Engineer (Electrical) (Grade-I) which was considered as CAS-I consumed by the petitioners, the petitioners did not get any promotion in their entire service life and as such, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of ACP-II from the date of completion of 17(seventeen) years of their service from the date of extension of the upgraded scale of Junior Engineer (Grade-I) and thereafter on completion of another 8(eight) years of service, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of MACP- III. But the petitioners were not extended with the benefit of ACP-II followed by MACP-III.

6. It was further asserted that if 17(seventeen) years of continuous service is counted from the date of up-gradation scale then the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of ACP-II w.e.f. 04.04.2010, 04.04.2010,12.04.2010 and 04.04.2010 respectively but the said benefit of ACP-II was also denied to the petitioners by the State-respondents and the petitioners would also be entitled to the benefit of MACP