NIMAI DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner praying for fixation of pay in the scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- meant for the post of Surveyor as per provisions of ROP Rules 1988 and for issue of appropriate writ quashing the office order dated 5.6.1993 etc.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Forester under the Forest Department, Government of Tripura. He was promoted to the post of Surveyor by office order dated 14.5.1986 (Annexure-1) in the scale ofRs.560- 25-710-20-860-40-1300/- The revised scale was brought into force with effect from 1.1.1986 by the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. By the graded scale No.9 the post of Surveyor has been re- designated as senior Surveyor, Surveyor and Junior Surveyor having scale of pay of Rs. 1700-3980/-, Rs. 1450-3710/- and Rs. 1300- 3220/- respectively. The petitioner later on came to know that he has been re-designated as Junior Surveyor and his pay has been fixed in the scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- meant for Junior Surveyors. Representations were submitted by him to correct his designation and to fix his pay in the scale of Rs.1450-3710/- prescribed for Surveyors. The respondents- authority vide letter dated 5.6.93 (Annexure- 3) regretted to concede to his prayers. It is further alleged that the proforma Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 were initially appointed as Amins in 1976 and 1979 in the same Department. They were treated as Junior Surveyors on their option to the said posts with effect from 1.1.86 when R.O.P. Rules of 1988 came into force. All the 3 respondents were again treated as Surveyors from the year 1989. The said respondents have not only been given higher scale but also now under consideration for promotion to the next higher grade as Senior Surveyors. Thus, it is pleaded, that the respondent-State by the aforesaid action has violated the lawful right of the writ petitioner for equal treatment. Describing the action as arbitrary and discriminatory, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs indicated at the very outset of the judgment.

(3.) The petitioner also submitted a Misc. petition (Misc. Case (C.R.) No. 476 of 1996) for orders restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from promoting the proforma respondents. This Court wide order dated 3.9.1996 made it clear that if the proforma respondents 3, 4 and 5 are promoted to the post of Senior Surveyors during the pendency of the writ petition, such promotion shall be subject to the decision of this writ petition.