BADAL DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment it is proposed to dispose of Civil Rule No. 397'11996 and Civil Rule No. 540/1996 since a common question of law is involved in both the cases.

(2.) The petitioners case is that some of the Asstt. Teachers who were juniors to them were promoted to the post of Asstt. Headmasters/Asstt. Headmistresses of different High Schools with effect from 5th day of November, 1992. The said batch of Assistant Teachers were again promoted to the post of Headmasters/Headmistresses in the pay scale of Rs. 2100-4530/- with effect from 29.11.95. Thus the petitioners were ignored and superceeded. On representation submitted by the petitioners, the respondents vide Notification No.F.2A (10-17)-DSE/83(L-III), dated 19th February, 1996 (Annexure-I) promoted the petitioners to the post of Assistant Headmasters/Assistant Headmistresses with retrospective effect from 5th November, 1992, that is, the day when their Juniors were promoted. By the same notification, the petitioners along with others were also promoted on ad-hoc basis to the post of Headmaster/Headmistresses for a period of six (6) months with effect from 29.11.95. that is the day on which their juniors were promoted.

(3.) Accordingly, the petitioners joined their new assignments. The petitioners were also allowed to get their pay fixed with effect from 5th February, 1992 in the scale of Rs.2000-4410/-and, thereafter, with effect from 29.11.95 in the scale of Rs.2100-4530/-. But soon thereafter, the respondents issued another notification No.F 2A (10-17))- DSE/83 (L-III), dated 24th July, 1996 clarifying that the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Headmasters/ Asstt. Headmistresses with effect from 5.11.92 and as Headmasters/Headmistresses with effect from 29.11.95 shall be notional and the financial benefit by way of fixation of pay in the higher grades was allowed from the date of assumption of charge in such grades. Thus, the financial benefits given earlier was withdrawn. This notification dated 24.7.1996 has been challenged on the ground that it is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.