ANJAN DEB ROY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two writ petitioners herein are stenographers and have filed this petition in respect of pay discrimination alleged by them as per the Revision of Pay rules (ROP rules) framed by the Government of Tripura following the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission and the refusal by the Tripura Government to address the grievances made by the petitioners which has not been addressed by the Pay Anomaly Committee constituted thereafter as well as by the 4th Pay Commission constituted by the Tripura Government. I have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Bannerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. GA who represents the respondents. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission dated February, 1988 (Annexure-4 A) wherein the Commission recommended that cadre services officers' movement from the lowest to the next higher grade may be automatic after 7 years of service in the lowest grade where one grade has two scales (b) and (a), 7 years will apply to movement from (b) to (a ). The said Pay Commission had recommended that in the case of Tripura Government Stenographers Service, movement from Grade-IV (b) to Grade- IV (a) may be automatic after the same number of years of service (i. e. 7 years of service ). The decision of the Government in respect of the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission came to be incorporated in the addendum No. 3 dated 13. 12. 1988 (Annexure- 4 B) wherein in respect of Tripura Government Stenographers Services no mention as to the acceptance of the recommendation or rejection of the recommendation was made. Whereas in respect of other cadre services such as Tripura Civil Services, Tripura Police Services, Tripura Engineering Services and so on, the Government of Tripura had permitted granting of revised pay scale. While taking a decision on the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission for movement to the next higher grade after 7 years, the Government by notifying through the addendum dated 13. 12. 1988 took the decision that the movement to the next higher grade shall be on completion of 4 years, instead of 7 years as has been recommended by the Commission. The Stenographers Services as has been noted above, had been left out of the benefit of the recommendation made by the Third Pay Commission with regard to the revised pay benefits as well as with regard to the automatic movement to the higher grade after 4 years of service and that is the grievance which is raised by the petitioners in the present case. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that while considering the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission, the refusal to grant the benefit to the Stenographers while giving such benefits to other services who are similarly situated as that of the petitioners, is not only discriminatory but the same is also vitiated inasmuch as no discernible materials are available for supporting the Government decision to keep the Stenographers out of the pay benefit and movement benefit, envisaged through the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. The further grievance made on behalf of the petitioners is that the anomaly committee which was constituted by the Government for looking into the grievances of groups in respect of the pay benifit and the movement benefit, did not at all address the grievances of the petitioners/stenographers and since by that time, the 4th Pay Commission came to be constituted, the decision was left to be taken for the 4th Pay Commission, which also apparently did not take any decision in the matter. Mr. Talapatra, learned sr. counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the decisions in Purshottam Lal Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1973 SC 1088 wherein with reference to a matter regarding benefits claimed on the basis of recommendation of a Pay Commission, the Apex Court opined that if any category of Government servant was excluded from the benefit that was recommended by the Pay Commission, materials should have been placed before the Court in support of exclusion of such category of Government servants. The decision in S. G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1967 SC 1427 was also cited wherein the Supreme Court elaborated on the issue of discrimination and stated that if a decision is taken without any principle and without any rule, it is unpredictable and such decision is antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with law. Decisions in E. P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1974 SC 555 and D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 have also been cited to press home on the point that the petitioners have been discriminated against by the Government, in matter of consideration of their entitlement to pay benefits and movement benefits in service, by disregarding the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. The discrimination is alleged primarily on the ground that the writ petitioners who belong to the Tripura Government Stenographers Service have been left out of the said benefit without any rational basis or supporting material or cogent reasons. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and submitted that the benefit of automatic movement after 4 years of service had been allowed only in respect of those posts where the pre-revised pay scale was Rs. 800-1860/- (revised pay scale Rs. 2100-3000-5000 ). The further contention raised by Mr. Chakraborty with reference to the counter affidavit is that the benefits of the Third Pay Commission have been conferred on services which have considered 'higher cadre' services and have not been given to the Stenographers services which are not considered to be 'higher cadre' service. Mr. Chakraborty has further argued that the scope of interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where allegation of pay anomaly is made, is very limited and this is not an appropriate case where this Court would direct the Government to give the benefit to the petitioners in terms of the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. Mr. Chakraborty in support of the said contention has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision in Union of India Vs. S. K. Sareen reported in AIR 1997 SC 3951. Another decision in State of West Bengal Vs. Deb Kumar Mukherjee reported in AIR 1995 SC 1889 have also been cited to show that unless materials are placed before the Court by the Stenographers to show how they are similarly situated with the other Services, this Court will not entertain the prayer for grant of higher pay benefit and movement benefit to the petitioners. In the present case, the beneficial recommendation of the Third Pay Commission also covers the Stenographers Service, but while the Government has accepted the recommendation for all other services, have strangely kept the Stenographers Service out of the benefit of the said recommendation. It also appears from the materials available, that the Pay Anomaly Committee constituted by the Tripura Government to examine the grievances of various groups, had not examined the cases of the Stenographers and when the matter was thereafter left for consideration by the 4th Pay Commission, the said Commission also did not address the grievances raised by the Stenographers of the Tripura Government. Therefore, it is not a case where the writ petitioners should have produced the materials in support of their claim as has been contended by respondents, but it appears to be a case, where the Government did not firstly accept the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission and secondly did not also address the grievances raised by the Stenographers regarding discrimination, in matter of conferment of pay benefit and movement benefit in their service career. Further, in light of the decision reported in Purshottam Lal's case (supra), as no materials have been placed before this Court to explain the reason for keeping the Stenographers out of the purview of benefits of recommendation of the Third Pay Commission, this Court has to take a view that no acceptable reason is available with the Government to discriminate against the petitioners. From the counter affidavit as also the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit, it can be seen that the denial of benefit to the Stenographers is sought to be explained on the ground of the Tripura Government Stenographers Service's not belonging to the 'higher grade' of service of the Government. It has been contended by Mr. Talapatra, learned sr. counsel on behalf of the petitioners that there is nothing like 'higher grade' service or lower grade service in the differentiation of cadres under the Tripura Government and accordingly the justification sought to be given in the counter affidavit is not an acceptable justification. This contention raised on behalf of the petitioners has force. Specific attention has also been drawn to those portion of the addendum dated 13. 12. 1988 whereby the Tripura Government granted higher pay benefit and higher movement benefit to some other Government Services. In the said addendum, TES Grade- IV and Services under TES Grade- V with pay scale of Rs. 800-1860, Rs. 750-1750/- and Rs. 600-1440/- have also been given the benefit of higher pay as well as the benefit of automatic movement to higher scale on completion of 4 years of service. Therefore, it appears that the other reasons cited by the respondents counsel to deny the benefit to the petitioners on the ground that such benefit is given only to persons whose pay is in the pay scale of Rs. 800-1860/- (revised pay scale of Rs. 2100-3000-5000), is not correct and such an explanation given in the counter affidavit is not acceptable. When an explanation is given in the counter affidavit that a particular benefit is given to only such class of service holders with the pay scale of Rs. 800-1860/- and is not given to persons drawing lower pay scale, the said assertion has to be found to be a correct assertion vis-a-vis the categories of people who have been given the benefit of pay scale. It is apparent from the addendum that service holders in the Tripura Engineering Service in Grade- IV and Grade-V who are drawing pay scale of Rs. 800-1860/-, Rs. 750-1750/- and Rs. 600-1440/- have also been given the higher pay benefit and the benefit of automatic movement in service and accordingly this Court is of the view that the explanation tendered in the counter affidavit for keeping the Stenographers out of recommendation of the Third Pay Commission is not acceptable. Thus, it appears that there has been discrimination in considering the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefits recommended by the 3rd Pay Commission.

(2.) CONSEQUENTLY, while being conscious that this Court is not an expert body to determine the actual entitlement of the petitioner or the pay scale that may be given to them or the movement benefit that should be given to the Stenographers' service, this Court is of the view that the Government of Tripura while considering the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission, have not acted fairly and with proper reason, while keeping the Tripura Government Stenographers out of the purview of the benefit recommended by the Third Pay Commission. The unfair treatment of the Stenographers is all the more glaring since the Government has decided to accept the recommendation in respect of all the other Services recommended by the Third Pay Commission. No materials have also been made available in support of the impugned decision of the Government. The reasons cited in the counter affidavit for treating the Stenographers as a separate class vis-a-vis the other beneficiaries are also not inspiring confidence of this Court.

(3.) IN light of the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that this case be disposed of by directing the Government to examine the grievances raised by the petitioners vis-a-vis the denial of the benefit of the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. During such consideration, the Government should naturally examine as to whether, the Stenographers can be treated differently from the other cadre services who have been given the benefit of the Third Pay Commission's recommendation. If no reasonable basis for differentiation between the two classes are available, the Government would be expected to take an appropriate decision in the matter. Naturally, the Government would also be expected to support whatever decision they take, by giving reasons for taking such decision. This exercise be carried out by the Government of Tripura within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.