PRADIP KUMAR DEY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Inkman in the Tripura Govt. Press, Agartala on purely temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 220-380/- on 30.4.1981. By an order dated 8.6.1990, the petitioner along with Shri Soumen Bhattacharjee, Chargeman (third respondent herein) and another were deputed for training in the operation and maintenance of the Apple Desk Top Photo Composing System for a period of only 14 days from 14.6.1990 to 27.6.1990 in Calcutta. After the said training both the petitioner and the third respondent herein were directed to work in the Desk Top Publishing Section (for short 'DTP Section'). While the third respondent was posted as DTP Operator, the petitioner was directed to work as Assistant DTP Operator in the said Section and accordingly, they joined the respective posts. The said order was given after obtaining their willingness. It was further provided in that order that both the petitioner and the third respondent herein would work in the DTP Section in their existing scale of pay and designation without extra remuneration. In other words, there was no fresh appointment for them in DTP Section and they continued to be Chargeman (Metal Printer-cum-Retouching) and Inkman respectively in the scale of pay attached to those posts during the period they were required to work in the DTP Section. On 11.9.1996 the petitioner submitted representation claiming pay at par with the third respondent, which, however, found no favour from the concerned authorities. By an order dated 25.5.1998, the second respondent herein (Director of Printing & Stationary Department) had withdrawn the petitioner from DTP Section and placed him in his original Machine Section of Letter Press Unit. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court by filing Civil Rule No. 161 of 1998 and failing to get an interim order of stay, he moved the Division Bench of this Court by filing Writ Appeal No. 69 of 1998. By an order dated 3.11.1998 by a Division Bench of this court in the said writ appeal, the operation of the order dated 25.5.1998 was stayed. Thereafter, on 30.11.1999 the second respondent herein issued an order converting and re-designating the post of Chargeman (Metal Printer-cum-Retouching) held by the third respondent as Chargeman (DTP) in the Offset Unit in the same scale of pay. In other words, the post of Chargeman (Metal Printer-cum-Retouching) stood abolished and in its place a new post Chargeman (DTP) was created showing the third respondent as the incumbent to the new post. On the same day, i.e. on 30.11.1999 the said respondent issued another memorandum showing the staff strength of the Offset Unit after merger of the Block Unit and the list containing the name of the posts and incumbents included the post of Chargeman (DTP) and the third respondent as holder of that post. Neither the post held by the petitioner nor his name figured in the said list. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned both the above order and the memorandum dated 30.11.1999 regarding conversion and re-designation of the post of Chargeman and publication of the staff Strength of Offset Unit excluding the petitioner and his post. The ground taken for such challenge is that though the petitioner and the third respondent had same training and were doing same nature of job, the State respondents have discriminated against him by a different treatment.

(2.) The State of Tripura and the Director, Printing & Stationary Department being the main respondents herein countered the contention advanced in the writ petition narrating the other side of the story. Their contention, inter alia is that the petitioner and the third respondent were asked to work in the DTP Section if they were willing without any extra remuneration and after they exercised their option, they were permitted to work in that Section. One post of Chargeman in the DTP was created after surrendering the post of Chargeman (Metal Printing-cum-Retouching) with same scale of pay and the third respondent, who was already holding the said post was allowed to continue in the new post, as he was a Diploma holder in Printing Technology. As a matter of fact, when new Offset machine was installed, it became necessary to switch over from Letter Press system to Offset system and for that purpose, the post of Chargeman (DTP) was created. The petitioner was an Inkman, which is a lower post than the Chargeman and as there was a good number of senior employees in the Grade of Inkman, it was not legally permissible to consider his case for appointment to any post in the DTP Section with the scale of pay as was enjoyed by the third respondent.

(3.) I have heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the State respondents.