PINTU SARKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions arise in common background. At the outset it may be noted that under identical circumstances group of petitions being WP(C) No.1372 of 2019 and other connected petitions in case of Smt. Sachirani Talukder (Datta) v. State of Tripura and others this Court has by a judgment dated 02.01.2020 examined all issues arising in the present group of petitions and dismissed those petitions. By superficial and cosmetic changes, there is no material difference in facts in all these petitions. Following portion of the said judgment may be noted.

(2.) Petitioner has challenged Rule 13(1)(v) of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Pay Rules of 2009). By the said sub-rule the existing system of providing training incentive in the form of one increment was replaced with lump sum incentive. This change was brought into effect from 01.01.2009. Case of the petitioner is that this demarcation of completion of training before and after 01.01.2009 is illegal and unlawful.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed to the post of Graduate Teacher in the Education Department of State of Tripura on purely temporary basis on fixed pay of Rs. 1500/- per month under order dated 12.03.1997. In due course the petitioner was brought in regular by scale. Presently, the petitioner is posted in a Govt. school at Belonia, South Tripura. Under the Revision of Pay Rules of 1999 (Pay Rules of 1999 for short) there was a provision made for granting training incentive in form of one increment upon successful completion of the departmental training to those employees who had appointed on or after 01/01/1996. This was modified by virtue of Rule 13(1)(v) of the Pay Rules of 2009. The existing system of granting one increment in form of incentive was replaced by a lump sum payment. This modification was made effective from 1.1.2009 and would apply to those employees who completed training after the said date.