Decided on December 03,2019



Akil Kureshi, J. - (1.)Petitioner seeks arrears of pay and allowances and other benefits w.e.f. 27.12.2010 notionally fixing her pay in the scale of Rs.4530-13000/- with the pay band-1 and Grade pay of Rs.1200 w.e.f. 01.07.2008. Petitioner claims that her case is identical to one decided by learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29.06.2015 in WP(C) No.505 of 2011 in case of Sri Pradipta Kumar Goswami & others v. The Government of Tripura & others. The petitioner would point out that in a subsequent decision dated 04.01.2019 in WP(C) No.89 of 2018 and connected petitions in case of Sri Biswajit Bhowmik v. The State of Tripura & others, similar view was taken by the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the Tripura State Electricity Corporation does not dispute these averments of the petitioner of her case being identical to the above mentioned two decided cases. Relevant portion of the decision in case of Pradipta Kumar Goswami may be noted:
"[10] This is really unfortunate that the persons who are working in the Corporation and who have worked in the Power Department for a considerable long term, will not be getting the benefit of the memorandum dated 09.06.2009 as the necessary fund is not available with the Corporation. It has not been disputed by the respondents that this memorandum has been implemented in the other Departments, effectively bringing the similarly situated persons on the regular establishment w.e.f. 01.07.2008. Since these unfortunate workers have been working in the Corporation, they are now at the mercy of the Corporation. From examination of the records so produced, this court also cannot disagree with the assessment that the corporation is reeling under serious crunch of fund and on financial matters this court cannot direct the Corporation to adopt any pay structure or regularisation if that is not possible within their means. But, the rigid attitude of the Corporation at the same time cannot be subscribed by this court. As a result, the decision contained in the communication dated 01.04.2011 is interfered with, inasmuch as this is not consistent with the decision of the Council of Ministers at all and the respondents could not show any other basis of issuing such communication. What the Council of Ministers has decided in their meeting dated 31.03.2011 is that the financial benefit may not be given with effect from 01.07.2008, but from their date of regularization. There again emerges another issue. What would be the effective date of regularization? The Council of Ministers is silent over that aspect of the matter. If the memorandum dated 09.06.2009 and the decision of the Council of Ministers dated 31.03.2011 are read together, only interpretation that can possibly be gathered is that the petitioners will be regularized w.e.f. 01.07.2008, but they will not get the financial benefit from that date. It has not been denied by the respondents that the offer of appointment that was issued on 27.12.2010 has been accepted by all the petitioners, but under protest.

[11] It is expected that without raising any further reservation, the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. shall treat the day of issuing offers of appointment i.e. 27.12.2010 as the effective date of reporting of the petitioners in the regular post, even though their posting was given by the appointment order dated 02.04.2011, Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

[12] It is made further clear that on 01.07.2008 the pay of the petitioners shall be fixed in the scale of pay that has been denoted in the memorandum dated 27.12.2010, but the petitioners will not get the financial benefit till 26.12.2010. From 27.12.2010 they would get all the financial benefit as the regular employee of the Corporation. As a result, the Corporation has to defray the arrear pay and allowances of the petitioners for a period, somewhat of more than 3(three) months only. The said arrear shall be paid to the petitioners within 3(three) months from the day when the certified copy of this order shall be furnished by the petitioners to the respondent No.4, else the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till the payment is made.

[13] With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. The supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent-Corporation shall be made part of the records. There shall be no order as to costs. "

(2.)The case of the petitioner would be covered by the same directions, particularly those mentioned in paragraph-12 and will apply mutatis mutandis to the present petitioner and her pay and allowances shall be fixed accordingly.
(3.)With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.