LAWS(TRIP)-2019-1-9

SUKANTA BISWAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

Decided On January 18, 2019
Sukanta Biswas Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed, as stated in the writ petition, as the Sub-Inspector of Police on 01.02.2000. After completion of 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police without any promotion, the petitioner was given the first benefit under Assured Career Progression [ACP]. It has been stated by the petitioner that the Recruitment Rules for the post of Inspector of Police was published by the notification dated 11.7.2007. In terms of the said recruitment rules, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police. By the office order dated 24.3.2011 his pay was fixed at Rs.16,470/- in the scale of pay of Rs.9570-30000/- [Pay Band-3] with Grade Pay of Rs.3500/- corresponding to pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.7450-13000/- under the ROP Rules, 1999. The petitioner has stated that by Rule 10 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, the method of fixation of pay in the revised pay structure of the employees as fresh recruits on or after 01.01.2006 has been provided. Rule 8 of the said ROP Rules, 2009 provides as under:

(3.) The petitioner's pay was supposed to be fixed under Rule 12 of the said Rules as he was promoted from the post of Sub-Inspector to the post of Inspector of police. On fixation of his pay in the post of Inspector of Police, Home Department, the Superintendent of Police [Traffic], Government of Tripura issued the office order bearing No.635-43/F.1(1)-Estt./SP(T)/13 dated 12.02.2014 by reducing the initial pay of the petitioner in the post of Inspector of Police by way of re-fixation and directing recovery of the excess amount as paid in terms of the earlier fixation of pay from the monthly salary of the petitioner. The said office order dated 12.02.2014 has been challenged in this writ petition and for purpose of reference, the entire text of the said office order dated 12.02.2014 is extracted hereunder: