Back
2025 Supreme(Tri) 64
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
ARINDAM LODH, J.
Sri Biplab Kanti Sukla Baidya, S/o. Late Jogendra Chandra Sukla Baidya – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary & Commissioner to the Government of Tripura, Department of Finance and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.257 of 2024
Decided On : 18-03-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Ms. S. Deb(Gupta), Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA
Ms. S. Deb(Gupta), Advocate; Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA
The court established that under ROP Rules, employees are entitled to higher pay scales after specified years of service without promotion, affirming the applicability of CAS and ACP provisions.
Headnote:(A) ROP Rules, 1999 - Rule 10 - Career Advancement Scheme - The petitioner, a Constable, claimed entitlement to higher pay scales after 10 years and 25 years of service without promotion. The court found that he was entitled to CAS-I at Rs.3300-7100/- and ACP-III at Rs.4200-8650/- based on service duration and lack of promotion. (Paras 3-12)
(B) Promotion and Pay Scale - The court clarified that CAS does not equate to promotion but should align with promotional pay scales when applicable. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner entered service in 1987 and was denied higher pay scales despite completing requisite years of service without promotion.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to CAS-I and ACP-III as per ROP Rules, with directions to re-fix his pay and pension accordingly.
Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of ROP Rules regarding pay scales and the petitioner’s entitlement to CAS and ACP.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to the higher pay scales as per the rules due to lack of promotion, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed pay scales.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ARINDAM LODH, J.
Heard Ms. S. Deb(Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents-State.
2. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
“i) Admit this petition of the petitioner and call for records relevant to the subject matter from the custody of the respondents;
ii) Issue writ calling upon the respondents and each of them, to showcase as to why a writ of certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for quashing/setting aside the impugned Departmental Order being No.547 dated 24.05.2001.
iii) Issue writ calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for commending/directing them, to fix the petitioner's pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/-, corresponding to revised scale of Pay Band-2, Rs.5310- 24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.2200/- as CAS-I on completion of 12 years of continuous service in the pay scale of Rs.950-2180/- as per ROP 1988 corresponding to pay scale of Rs.3200-6030/- i.e. in 01.01.1999;
iv) Issue writ calling upon the respondents and each of them, to showcase as to why a writ petition, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, to fix the petitioner's pay Rs.4200-8650/-, corresponding pay scale of Rs.5700-24000/- with GP of Rs.2800/- as ACP-III as on 01.02.2014 on completion of 25 years of continuous service;
v) Issue writ calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for commending/directing them, to make payment of the arrears of salary and allowances (including Special Compensatory Allowances), admissible to him, in tune with the various Orders, referred to hereinbefore;
vi) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule Absolute in terms of ii, iii, iv & v above;
vii) Costs of an incidental to this proceeding;
viii) Any other relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper;
3. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner entered into the service as a Constable under the respondents in the year 1987. During his service, the Government of Tripura introduced ROP Rules , 1999 wherein a provision has been made that if an employee is not given promotion due to stagnation of promotional posts, then he will be granted higher pay scale by way of giving the benefit of CAS. There is also provision that CAS-I will be provided after completion of 10(ten) years of service, if no promotion was given to such an employee. CAS-II will be provided after 7 years and CAS-III will be provided after completion of another 7 years. Under Sub-Rule (vii) of Rule 10 of ROP Rules , 1999, it is clearly provided that “by way of scale advancement in this scheme, the CAS scale can not exceed the promotion scale. (However, CAS scale can become same as promotion scale) ……”.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he completed 10(ten) years of service in the year 1997 without any promotion. In view of this, he was entitled to get the benefit of CAS-I, which will be the same pay scale as that of the promotional pay scale. The promotional post of Constable is Head Constable having the pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- but the said pay scale was not given to the petitioner. After completion of 10(ten) years of service he was given the same pay scale of Rs.3200-6030/-, which is the pay scale of Constable.
5. However, in the year 2001, the petitioner was promoted to the post of ASI in the pay scale of Rs.4000-7890/- which would be treated as the second consumption of CAS. Thereafter, the respondents introduced Assured Career Progression(for short, ACP) Scheme wherein it is prescribed that after completion of 25 years, an employee will be provided third ACP if promotion is not given to him within this period. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not further promoted to the next higher
