ANIL CHANDRA KAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE short fact giving rise to the present proceeding is that the petitioner herein was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 30. 04. 1973 and promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 30. 11. 1981 in the Education Department, under the Govt. of Tripura. the fourth respondent, Smti Prava Biswas was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk on 04. 01. 1974 and promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 26. 08. 1987 in the same Department. Admittedly, she was junior to the petitioner. the pay scale of Lower Division Clerk at the time the petitioner and the fourth respondent were appointed was Rs. 125-200/-, which was revised to Rs. 240-440/- in 1975. The pay scale of the Upper Division Clerk was Rs. 330-580/-, which was revised to Rs. 550-1245/- in the Pay Revision of 1982. The subsequent pay revision of 1988, which was given effect from 01. 01. 1986, further revised the pay scale of the Upper Division Clerk to Rs. 1250-2890/ -. On 26. 08. 1987 when the fourth respondent was promoted, her pay was fixed at Rs. 775/- in the un-revised pay scale of Rs. 550-1245/- under FR 22 (a) (i), as she opted for the promotional benefit under FR 22c on 04. 01. 1988, when she would be entitled to one increment in the post of Lower Division Clerk. Thus, on 04. 01. 1988 her pay was re-fixed by adding the benefit of FR 22c to Rs. 825/ -. On 26. 08. 1987, the date when the fourth respondent was promoted, with her pay fixed at Rs. 775/-, the petitioner, who is admittedly senior to the said respondent was getting the same pay of Rs. 775/- in the same un-revised pay scale of Rs. 550-1245/- of the Upper Division Clerk. He had no grievance on 26. 08. 1987, as on that date both of them were getting same pay of Rs. 775/- in the pay scale of Rs. 550-1245/ -. But on 04. 01. 1988 when the fourth respondent, though a junior to the petitioner was given the benefit of FR 22c, with her pay fixed at Rs. 825/-, leaving the petitioner at Rs. 775/- only, there lay his grievances. According to the petitioner, as per provision contained in the Memorandum No. F. 19 (1)-FIN (G) 83, dated 23rd August, 1986 (Annexure-6), he is entitled to get his pay stepped up, equal to the pay of his junior respondent herein, as aforesaid. He made several approaches to the official respondents for redressal by way of stepping up of his pay in terms of the said memorandum, but all his approaches having proved futile, he has instituted this writ proceeding for a direction in terms of his prayer as aforementioned.

(3.) THE official respondents in their counter-affidavit admitted the seniority position of the petitioner and the fourth respondent and also the fact that by application of FR 22c on 04. 01. 1988 as per option of the fourth respondent, her pay became higher to that of the petitioner. But then, it has been contended inter alia that by virtue of the provisions of Revision of Pay Rules, 1988 (for short 'rop of 1988'), which came into force with retrospective effect from 01. 01. 1986, before promotion of the fourth respondent, she was given the higher scale of pay of Rs. 1020-2620/- in the grade of Lower Division Clerk on completion of 10 years of service in the same grade without a promotion. Thus, her pay was fixed at Rs. 1770/- in the grade of Lower Division Clerk in the said pay scale of Rs. 1020-2620/ -. This benefit of scale advancement on completion of 10 years of service without a promotion was not available to the petitioner herein, who was promoted to the grade of Upper Division Clerk before complaint of 10 years of service. The position that has emerged is that before her promotion the fourth respondent was in a higher scale of pay in the grade of Lower Division Clerk and, therefore, it cannot be said that before their promotion both the petitioner and the fourth respondent were in the same scale of pay. According to the official respondents, the anomaly has arisen not because of the application under FR 22c but because of her getting a scale advancement on completion of 10 years service in the grade of Lower Division Clerk. In the Office Order dated 17. 01. 1996, the Director of School Education, the second respondent herein, disposed of the application of the petitioner claiming stepping up of his pay on the ground that the anomaly in the pay of the petitioner and the fourth respondent did not arise due to application of FR 22c.