KUSUM CH SARKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher on 28.3.1977 in the pay scale of Rs. 240-440/- under the Directorate of Education. On 17.9.1981 his services were placed under the disposal of the Social Welfare and Social Education Directorate to work for visually handicapped boys. On 18.6.1983 he was deputed to the training center for visually handicapped at Ramkrishna Mission, Narehdrapur, Kolkata, which he successfully completed. On 26.10.1984 he was appointed as Instructor-cum-Warden in the pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/-, which ultimately became his substantive post in the Department of Social Welfare and Social Education. The Tripura State Civil Services (Revision Pay) Rule's, 1988 (for short ROP Rules, 1988') came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- of the said post of Instructor-cum-Warden was revised to Rs. 1300-3220/- to which the pay of the petitioner was again fixed in accordance with the provisions contained in the said ROP Rules, 1988. The scheme of revision in the said ROP Rules, 1988 provided for career advancement of all employees either by promotion or by movement to higher scale or graded scale after completion of 10 years and 18 years of service if during this period an employee does not get any promotion. Part 'A' of the ROP Rules, 1988 deals with pay scales of the cadre services, Part 'B' takes care of the posts of non-cadre services and Part 'C' with some other posts for which graded scale of pay have been provided. According to the provision contained in Part 'B' (Schedule III) employees other than those specified in Note 3(a)(i) (ii)(iii) shall on completion of 10 years of service in the same post without promotion move to the higher scale of pay. Similarly, on completion of 18 years of service in the same post without any promotion since his first apipointment, an employee shall move to the scale next above the scale, which is next higher than the revised scale. Similarly, for the employees included in Part 'C' graded scales of pay have been provided. Such employees entering into the lowest grade shall move to the next higher grade on completion of 10 years of service and the highest grade on completion of 18 years of service if during this period he gets no promotion. The said ROP Rules, 1988 provide that for the post of Instructor-cum- Warden of the Social Welfare and Social Education Department, graded scale No. 27 shall be applicable. But in Part 'C' containing the graded scales, the post of In- structor-cum-Warden has not been mentioned. In scale No. 27 no pay scale higher than the pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- has been provided there for movement of an employee on competition of 10 years and 18 years of service, who was appointed as Instructor-cum-Warden and remained in- the same post without any promotion. The grievance of the petitioner is that as he was directly appointed to the post of Instructor-cum-Warden in the pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/-, which was revised to Rs.1300- 3220/-, two more higher graded scales of pay should have been created in the graded scale No. 27 or the post should have been brought into Part 'B' of Schedule III in order to enable him to move to the next higher pay scales on completion of 10 yeans and 18 years of service in the same post without promotion. According to the petitioner, it is a clear case of discrimination and deprivation from the benefit of career advancement and, therefore, the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution stands infracted calling for interference by this court.

(2.) The State respondents admitted in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner was appointed as Instructor-cum-warden in the pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- on 26.10.1984 and the pay scale of the said post was revised to Rs. 1300-3220/- by the ROP Rules, 1988. The only contention against the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled' to the benefit of graded scale No. 27 by promotion or movement to the scale of pay of higher grades and, therefore, he cannot have any grievance as no discrimination or deprivation does at all arise.

(3.) I have heard Mr. A. L. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the State respondents.