Tripura HC: Affirms that Higher Pay Due to Pay Scale Revision Does Not Amount to Career Progression

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

In the writ petition Smt Shipra Debnath & Ors vs State of Tripura & Ors (W.P.(C) No.1449 of 2019), Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra decided on the issue whether higher pay due to pay scale revision amounts to a career progression.

Brief Facts

Petitioners represented a deceased employee Mr Debnath who was initially appointed as helper under the Tripura Government Services [Revised Pay] Rules, 1982. But, later re-designated to Junior electrician post under Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay] Rules, 1988 with higher pay. Further entitled to a next graded scale on completion of 10 years of service, he was granted the same higher salary and was re-designated to the post of Electrician. The said pay scale was revised by the Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay] Rules, 1999.

On completing 17 years of service, according to the 1999 rules, the employee was moved to a larger scale pay for the same post. As per Rule 10(2) of the ROP Rules, 2009 each scale up-gradation availed by an employee after his direct entry into the post of a department shall be treated as consumption of one Assured Career Progression (ACP). Subsequently, the employee completed 25 years of service and demanded his third ACP. The same was not granted by the authority and was rejected by a letter of the Finance department; the said letter has been challenged through a writ petition.

Arguments Advanced

Respondents argued that the employee is not entitled to a third ACP, as he had already consumed three scale upliftments.

Petitioners argued citing the case of Dilip Kumar Guha v. State of Tripura & Ors, that the said controversy had been settled. Higher pay in the same post due to the revised pay scale cannot be considered as a career progression, and therefore, the pay increase after 25 years of service has to be granted.

Court’s Decision and Observation

The Court observed that the Additional learned G.A. has submitted that the facts are similar to the Dilip Guha case, and the said judgment has not been challenged. On the scrutiny of facts, the Court also concluded that the factual matrix is similar, and there is no distinguishable element between the current writ petition and the decided case. Hence, it is wholly covered by the decision. Respondents were directed by the Court to release the third ACP in favour of the employees to legal heirs of the deceased.

Furthermore, the Court also directed to refix the last pay and modify the pension or family pension claimed, based on the revised pay. The payment should be made within three months from the date the petitioner produces a copy of the order. The benefit shall be released from 3 years before the date of filing the writ petition and the period between completion of 25 years service by the employee and the abovementioned date shall be carried forward notionally. Hence the writ petition stands allowed.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -