SUJIT PATARI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is filed by the original petitioners. They seek recall of a decision of Division Bench of this Court dated 14th August, 2018 in Writ Appeal No.46/2013.

(2.) Review petitioners are all diploma holders. They were appointed as Junior Engineers under the Director of Tribal Welfare Department in the year 1997. At the relevant time, the rules envisaged up-gradation to the next scale of pay after completion of 4(four) years of regular service. The Government of Tripura framed Revision of Pay Rules, 1999 (ROP 1999 for short) w.e.f 1st January, 1996. Under a notification dated 17th November, 2004 the ROP 1999 were amended. Under this amendment, the degree holder Junior Engineers would continue to get the benefit of upgradation of pay upon completion of 4(four) years of service whereas for the diploma holders this requirement was increased to 8(eight) years. This amendment was given retrospective effect from 1st January, 1996. In this background, the case of the petitioners was that the State of Tripura had to grant up-gradation of pay upon completion of 4(four) years of service, ignoring the amendments in the rule. The writ petition as well as writ appeal came to be dismissed. The judgment of the Division Bench is under review.

(3.) Main ground for seeking review is that, according to the petitioners, under identical situation Division Bench of this Court in Case of Sri Sujit Datta v. The State of Tripura and Ors. [WP(C) No.17/2008] in a decision dated 17th July, 2013 had held that such amendments of the rule would not take away the existing rights. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that both set of employees i.e. the present petitioners as well as the petitioner of the said case were governed by same revision of pay rules. Merely because their parent departments were different, and the service rules of the respective departments were different, would not enable the State to apply different standards of fixation of pay scales. He submitted that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two decisions of Division Benches of this Court.