HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
BISWAJIT PALIT, J.
Samaresh Das, S/o. Late Binod Bihari Das - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura, to be represented by the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.332 of 2024
Decided On : 10-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
BISWAJIT PALIT, J.
Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, Learned Addl. G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
2. By means of filing this writ petition, the present petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby quashing and cancelling the letter, dated, 20.02.2024, issued by the Block Development Officer, Silachari RD Block, Gomati District.
(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents not to cause any recovery from the Petitioner in connection with his ACP-1 financial benefits.
(iii) Make the rules absolute.
(iv) Call for records.
(v) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon’ble High Court considered fit and proper.
3. The brief facts of this writ petition is that according to the petitioner vide Order No.F.2(9)/DIT/Estt./2000/1140-44, dated 22.06.2002, issued by the Director, Information Technology Department, Government of Tripura, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Computer Operator in Community Information Centre, under the Directorate of Information Technology (Department of Industries and Commerce) on contract basis for a period of two years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order and after appointment the petitioner joined under the respondents w.e.f. 08.07.2002. Thereafter, vide notification dated 27.06.2009 issued by the Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura the petitioner was offered appointment to the temporary post of Computer Operator (CIC) (Group-C, Non- Gazetted) on regular pay scale of Rs.4200-8650/- per month plus other admissible allowances under R.D. Department w.e.f 01.12.2008 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said offer of appointment as the petitioner had completed six years of service on fixed pay basis and accordingly the petitioner joined in the post of Computer Operator under Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura vide memo dated 27.06.2009 marked as Annexure-2.
4. Thereafter vide notification dated 27.06.2009 issued by the Joint Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura, the Governor was pleased to grant regular scale of pay of Rs.4200-8650/- to 52 Computer Operators (CIC) (Group-C, Non-Gazetted), including the petitioner after completion of six years of continuous service without break on fixed pay basis. It was also mentioned that the past services of those 52 nos. Computer Operators under CIC rendered in the IT Department would be taken into consideration for future service benefit. The notification dated 27.06.2009 is annexed with this petition marked as Annexure-2. After that, vide Order No.F.1(114-B)-DM/G/ESTT/2012/133, dated 17.02.2014 issued by the District Magistrate & Collector, Gomati District, Udaipur the petitioner along with others were allowed benefit of ACP-I w.e.f. 08.07.2012 on completion of his 10 years of regular and satisfactory service from the date of his entry into service i.e. on 22.06.2022 and the effective date from which the ACP shall be admissible was determined on 08.07.2012. The order is annexed with the petition marked as Annexure-3.
5. It was also further stated that the Deputy Secretary, Government of Tripura, Rural Development Department vide letter dated 20.09.2014 informed the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura that contractual service period is not taken into account for computing the required period of service for ACP as per reference Computer Operators (CIC) has been allowed ACP taking the contract period of service into consideration and it should be cancelled immediately and excess amount paid to the incumbents shall be recovered at the earliest. Subs
Recovery of excess payments from Group-C employees is impermissible after five years, as established in Rafiq Masih's case.
Recovery of excess payments from Group-C employees beyond five years is impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines.
Recovery of excess payments from employees in Group-C service is impermissible after five years, emphasizing fairness and justice in employment matters.
Recovery of excess payments from Group-C employees is impermissible after five years, ensuring equitable treatment in employment matters.
Recovery of excess payments from Group-C employees is impermissible if the excess payment was made for over five years, as established in prior judgments.
Recovery of excess payments from employees in Class-III and Class-IV services is impermissible, especially when the excess has been enjoyed for over five years.
Recovery from retired employees is impermissible when excess payments were made without misrepresentation, as per established legal precedents.
Where court arrives at conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of employer's righ....
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.