Indrajit Deb And 4 ORS v. State Of Tripura And ORS
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA W.P.(C)No.106of2010 1. ShriIndrajitDeb,
2. ShriSubhasChandraSaha, !
"
# 3. ShriRatishBanik, $ % & ! " # 4. ShriHiranmoyBagchi, '
% ( ! " 5. ShriRanjitDas, ( ( ) *
.........Petitioners -Versus- 1. TheStateofTripura, " % " )+ , % +
2. TheJointSecretary,
, % +
[2] 3. TheUnderSecretary,
, % +
4. TripuraRoadTransportCorporation, "
( ........Respondents BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA , : % + , : + + " - .* :12.01.2015 : Yes No √ JUDGMENT&ORDER(ORAL) ' % !/! !01.2
[2] 3 % " 4%5 !1/ 1662
" 7 6/6816689 + %
[3]
% "
0:;6
" <&
% "
)+ " " + + + "
0:=; 0::: "
12621660 >06?
" + " )+ # " 606/1660 ,
0:011661
%@
!
"
# [3]
+ + )+ )+ "
A
" B
[4] (a) to sanction the 10% D.A. with effect from 01.04.2001insteadof01.01.2003ascontainedin Memorandumdated19thDec,2002(AnnexureC8). (b) to grant the further 6% (six percent) D.A. to the employees of the TRTC with effect from 01.01.2003 instead of 01.04.04 as given to the employeesoftheStateGovt.; (b)(i) to grant 7% D.A. with effect from 01.04.04instatedof01.04.05. (b)(iii) to grant 7% D.A. with effect from 01.04.05instatedof01.09.06. (b)(iii) to grant 7% D.A. with effect from 01.01.06instatedof01.04.07. (b)(iv) to grant the 5% enhanced D.A. witheffectfrom01.07.06and01.01.07as granted to the employees of the Tripura Government. (b) (v) to hold that the petitioners are entitled to get D.A.
at the same rate as applicable to the State Govt. employees witheffectfromthesamedateasgivento theemployeesoftheStateGovt.; (c)tograntsuchfurtherorotherrelief/reliefsas the Hon'ble High Court will deem fit and proper underthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase."
+
% + "
% " ' + )+ C
% )+ " +
" $ 0::03
[5] [5] * + +
+ 7 6/681668 4%5!1/1662 B "20.ItistruethattheemployeesofthePSUsand other autonomous bodies under the Government of Tripura are not at par with the State Government employees. There is difference in statusofserviceandserviceconditionsetc.Atthe sametime,itcannotbelostsightofthefactthat they are the employees of State Government undertakings. It is the State Government under whose management andcontrol,the Government undertakingsrun." [6] , " % +
C StateofH.P.vs.H.P.StateRecognized& AidedSchoolsManagingCommittees, (1995)4 SCC507StateofHaryanavs.RajpalSharma (1996) 5 SCC 273 Haryana State Adhyapak Sanghvs.StateofHaryana, (1990)Supp.SCC 306 Chandigarh Administration vs. Mrs. Rajni Vali, AIR2000SC634 B For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the matter needs considerationoftherespondentconsistentlywith the observations made above.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to theStateGovernmenttoexaminethegrievanceof the petitioners in the light of the observations madeaboveandthentopassappropriateorderin accordance with law. Needless to say that they willbearinmindthattheemployeesofthePSUs etc. were all along treated at par with their counter parts in the State Government Departments in the matter of grant of DAs from time to time. They will also bear in mind that in the counter affidavits filed, there is no indication astowhatledtothedisparitymakingagrievance against which, the petitioners have invoked the writjurisdictionofthisCourt.
[6] [7]
7 6/681668 " - 3 " " !62 166:' +
+ B "5.Itappearsfromthejudgmentandorderdated 04.08.2008 impugned in the present appeal that while the learned Single Judge has narrated the case of the writ petitioners as well as the respondents in the judgment and has also referred to a number of decisions of the Apex Court relating to equal pay for equal work, no findingrelatingtotheclaimofthewritpetitioners in the writ petition has been recorded. The learned Single Judge has only directed the State toexaminethegrievanceofthewritpetitionersin the light of the facts narrated as well as the decisions of the Apex Court referred to by the learnedcounselfortheparties. 6.
Since no finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge and no direction has also beenissuedtotakeadecisionbytheStateGovt. inaparticularway,inourconsideredopinion,no interference is called for. The State Government shall consider the claim of the writ petitioners in accordancewithlawandpassnecessaryordersin termsofthedirectionscontainedinthejudgment and order dated 04.08.2008 impugned in the present appeal, within a period 3 months from today.
, 7 6/681668 4%5!1/1662 7 126=166: !62166: " + 6:06166: C 16 +
[7] C B Sincenofindinghasbeenrecordedbythelearned Single Judge and no direction has also been issued to take a decision by the State Govt. in a particular way, in our considered opinion, no interference is called for. The State Government shall consider the claim of the writ petitioners in accordancewithlawandpassnecessaryordersin termsofthedirectionscontainedinthejudgment and order dated 04.08.2008 impugned in the present appeal, within a period 3 months from today. In compliance of the above direction, related records in the matter have been examined carefully.
Onperusalofrecordsitappearsthatthe petitionersintheirWritpetitionhadtriedtogive impression that the TRTC is a Government Department and accordingly its employees are supposed to get facilities like employees of the State Government. But such an impression is not based on reality. TRTC is completely a separate organization a corporation having its own Board ofDirectors.RecruitmentRulesandotherservice conditions of the employees of the Corporation are determined by the TRTC Authority. State Governmentdoesnotrecruitanyemployeeofthe TRTCnordeterminetheirserviceterms.Sincethe employeesoftheTRTCandotherPSUshavetheir own distinct status, they are definitely not Government employees.
It is further mentioned that all PSUs including TRTC are treated alike in respect of grant of DA and other allowances. Therefore, it is not arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of provisions of law in granting DA for theemployeesofTRTCandotherPSUs.
7 + " " &
[10]
%
)+ "
[8] % + +
4 + "5 0::: , & " " "
% )+ "
+ +
"
$ & "
'
+ " )+
" "
& + "
+ , C %
,D4;5 ,9!4%5<:: 0668166: C E 0: '
)+ + " +
"
&
3
" 7 6/681668 - +
" & )+ <
[9] !01 & !01.2 7 -
" - !01.2 [11]
%
!01.2" + +
" 06 B 10. With regard to the statements made in subC paragraphs(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(viii),(ix)and(x) ofparagraph2ofthewritpetition,theanswering respondentsstatethefactualpositionasrevealed fromrecordsasfollows: After the introduction of the revised pay structure in respect of PSUs and Autonomous Bodies in 1999, 32% D.A. on revised basic pay had been granted, till 01.01.2003 State Government employees have been granted 38%D.A. 8% D.A. w.e.f. 01.01.1998 5% D.A. w.e.f. 01.01.1999 9% D.A. w.e.f. 01.01.2000 10% D.A. w.e.f. 01.04.2001 6% D.A. w.e.f. 01.01.2003 13%D.A.w.e.f.01.01.1999 9%D.A.w.e.f.01.01.2000 10%D.A.w.e.f.01.01.
2003 From a perusal of the above comparative statement,itiscrystalclearthattheemployeesof the PSUs including TRTC have always been differentlytreatedquatheemployeesoftheState Governmentbothinrespectoftheintroductionof the revision of pay as well as the grant of DAs.
[10] the grant of DAs from time to time. It is further stated that in the matter of the grant of DA, the TRTC being an industrial unit, it is not axiomatic thattheDAsgranttotheemployeesoftheState GovernmentshallalsobetheDAstobegrantedto the employees of the TRTC. The petitioners have tried to make out simile with respect to some of theotherinstitutionsbeingobliviousthattheyare notindustrialunits. [12]
+ + & *"
" " 'F % "
7
'
" + !01.2
" +
"
%
" )+ - 7 6/681668+
7 126=166: !62166: C C " - +
!01.2 "
7
[11]
)+
" "
" +
+ % 999 % 9 $ " %
" ' "
+ "
+ "
%
" )+ [13]
+
" %
145 3 + A 5 %
" &
$ & &
%
5
6:06166: C 16 !0 1 + 7 6/681668 4%5!1/1662 7 126=166: !62 166:G
[12]
"
%
" & "
" % " + 3 " )+ " "
9
" )+ $
"
%
" [14]
3 " % 6:06166: + 7 6/681668 7 126=166: + " + 4%5!1/1662 !62166:9 C
+ " " "
%
" A +
"
+
)+ " "
%
+
"
%
[13] $ + " " " 9 $
% & "
"+ + + "
% $ "#+ + " "
" " " &
% " " & $ " )+
G9 "
%
+ 9 )+
9 + " "
"
" "
+ " )+ [15] '+ % "
"
' + JUDGE