SANJIB TRIPURA; SANKAR DAS; BIR KUMAR DEBBARMA; SUBI DEBBARMA; TAPAN DEBBARMA; AMAL TALUKDAR; UTTAM SARKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA; DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS; COMMANDANT, 8TH BATTALION, TRIPURA STATE RIFLES OF LALCHERRA; SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.562 of 2015 [Sri Sanjib Tripura vs. State of Tripura and others] W.P.(C) No.563 of 2015 [Sri Sankar Das vs. State of Tripura and others], W.P.(C) No.564 of 2015 [Sri Bir Kumar Debbarma vs. State of Tripura and others], W.P.(C) No.565 of 2015 [Sri Subi Debbarma vs. State of Tripura and others], W.P.(C) No.567 of 2015 [Sri Tapan Debbarma vs. State of Tripura and others], W.P.(C) No.568 of 2015 [Sri Amal Talukdar vs. State of Tripura and others] and W.P.(C) No.569 of 2015 [Sri Uttam Sarkar vs. State of Tripura and others] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment having regard to the controversy raised in these writ petitions.

(2.) The reliefs sought in these writ petitions are identical. Those are for quashing the memorandum No.F.455/TSR-8/ACCTTS/P.FIX/2013/767 dated 23.01.2015, for a direction for fixation of pay in accordance with Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, in particular to fix the pay at least in the same manner as that of one Arun Debbarma, Nayeb Subedar (GD), 11th Battalion, TSR (IR-VII), for payment of interest @14% per annum on the difference i.e. on outstanding pay and allowances and for removing disparity of pay between the petitioners and the juniors who are directly recruited to the post of Nayeb Subedar (GD) forthwith and that for staying the operation of the recovery of the purported excess amount from the salary of the petitioners till necessary amendment of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 relating to the pay anomalies is carried out. According to the petitioners, they were promoted to the post as Nayeb Subedar (GD). On introduction of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, the pay of the petitioners was re-fixed by the respondents. In the year 2013, by the memorandum under No.F.6(1)-FIN(PC)/2008 dated 21.06.2013, the state introduced guidelines as a matter of clarification for fixation of pay at the time of promotion of employees commenced on and after 01.01.2006. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to be fitted in the Clause 2 (ii) of the said memorandum dated 21.06.2013 but the respondents by misreading the said clarification fitted them against Clause 2(i) ibid and consequent thereupon, the petitioners are compelled to get a reduced salary in comparison to the others, holding the same position and from their juniors in the grade. For purpose of reference, the clarification/illustrations as provided under the memorandum dated 21.06.2013 are extracted hereunder: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_43_LAWS(TRIP)8_2016_1.html</FRM>

(3.) By the memorandum under No.F.(6)- FIN(PC)/2008 dated 19.02.2015, the respondents with reference to Rule 5 and 6 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, has provided that a State Government employee had an option to elect to switch over to the revised pay structure from 01.01.2006 or from the date of next increment or from the date of promotion, or as the case may be. For the cases commenced prior to the notification of the said rules, it has been provided that the concerned employees shall be asked to exercise such an option in the prescribed form within 3(three) months from the date of publication of the said order. The sub Rule 4 of Rule 6 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 provides that the option once exercised shall be final. It is observed in the memorandum dated 19.02.2015 that in many cases the Government employees are drawing less pay compared to their juniors even though they exercised their option for coming over to the revised pay structure from the date of having the higher pre-revised pay scale on account of promotion or, as the case may be or for financial up-gradation under Career Advancement Scheme, in short CAS. Having regard to that situation, the respondents by the said notification dated 19.02.2015 had permitted to re-exercise their option to come over to the revised pay structure in relaxation of stipulation under Rule 6(4) of the Rules as stated subject to the conditions as under: