TUSHAR KANTI DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. Facts being substantially similar, we may record the facts of WP(C) No.660 of 2017. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) in the Public Works Department, State of Tripura in the year 1997. The services of the petitioners were regularized and they were encadred in Grade-V(B) of Tripura Engineering Service as Diploma Holder, Junior Engineer. According to the petitioners, as per the Rule 30 of the Tripura Engineering Service Rules, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred to as "TES Rule, 1987"), upon completion of 8(eight) years of service as Junior Engineer Grade-V(B), the employee would be entitled to be placed in the higher scale of Rs.7,450/- - 13,000/- under Career Advancement Scheme-I (hereinafter to be referred to as CAS-I). The petitioners would further point out that TES Rules, 1987 were amended by 7th Amendment Rules, 2014 w.e.f. 10.06.2014 which provided that Diploma Holder TES Grade-V(B) Engineers would be granted movement in the next scale of pay of Rs.9,570/- - 30,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.3500/- on completion of 10 (ten) years of service. According to the petitioners, since they had completed 8(eight) years of regular service prior to this amendment, their case would be governed by pre-amended Rule 30 of TES Rules, 1987. With such a plea, the petitioners first approached the Government. When their request was not granted, they filed the present petition.

(2.) The respondents have filed affidavit and opposed the petition. They have mainly contended that upon implementation of Tripura Civil Service (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred to as "ROP, 2009"), previous Scheme of Career Advancement was replaced by Assured Career Progression Scheme ("ACP", for short) which envisages that benefit of higher pay scale would be available to an employee upon completion of 10(ten) years of continuous and satisfactory service without promotion. Respondents, therefore, argue that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of CAS-I under TES Rules, 1987. Instead the petitioners can claim the benefit of ACP under ROP, 2009 and consequently, could be granted the benefit of higher pay scale only after completion of 10(ten) years of continuous service. The respondents also point out that the petitioners were given an option to be governed by the pay fixation under ROP, 2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The petitioners had duly exercised such an option. The petitioners now cannot argue that for the purpose of Career Advancement, they would be governed by TES, 1987 Rules.

(3.) Facts in the connected petition being WP(C) No.663 of 2017 are similar. They, therefore, are not recorded in detail. It is not necessary to enter into detailed discussion on the rival contentions since entire issue is squarely covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.46 of 2014 and connected appeals in case of State of Tripura and others v. Sri Ajit Chakraborty and others decided on 28.05.2019. The issue similar to one that arises in the present petition was presented before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge having allowed the petition, the State had preferred writ appeals. The appeals were allowed by the judgment in question. The Court held and observed as under:-