Biswanath Bhattacharjee and Others vs Tripura Jute Mills Limited and Others

S.C. Das, J.—1. This batch of 11 writ petitions were taken up together on the prayer of learned counsel of both side since the substantial facts, reliefs claimed and the issues raised were almost identical and hence, those were heard analogously and this common judgment is passed in respect of all the writ petitions.

The petitioners, inter alia, prayed that they were entitled to career advancement scheme as per revision of pay rules(for short ''ROP Rues''), 1999 and that they were entitled to get promotion to the next higher grade and further they were entitled to time bound scale movement etc.

At the very outset learned counsel, Mr. S. Datta appearing for the petitioners in all the cases, placing a copy of judgment dated 08.04.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the then Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in Writ Appeal No. 74 of 2003 [judgment placed in the record of W.P.(C) No. 283 of 2006], submitted that the respective cases of all the petitioners were well covered by the judgment of the said writ appeal and the petitioners may be given the similar benefit as has been granted by the Division Bench in the writ appeal.

Learned State counsel appearing for the State-respondents in the particular writ petition submitted that the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 74 of 2003 has been challenged before the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition(SLP) and the Special Leave Petition has been admitted, but has not been listed for hearing as yet and so, the petitioners as of right cannot claim the same benefit, which has been allowed in Writ Appeal No. 74 of 2003.

Nine writ petitions are pending from the year 2006 and the rest two from 2011. The State-respondents failed to produce any order from the Apex Court regarding the fate of Special Leave Petition. Therefore, all the writ petitions were heard together for final disposal.

Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be given similar benefit as that of the benefit allowed in Writ Appeal No. 74 of 2003. It is also fairly submitted by learned State counsel that the petitioners of the present batch of writ petitions and the writ petitioners of Writ Appeal No. 74 of 2003 were similarly situated and so, in view of the judgment in the writ appeal the petitioners are also well covered, but if the Special Leave Petition succeeds then the petitioners of the present batch of writ petitions also will not be entitled to any benefit as claimed in the writ petitions. Under such terms the present batch of writ petitions also may be disposed of.

It is an admitted position that Tripura Jute Mills Limited(for short ''TJML'') is a company owned by the State Government. It is also an admitted position that the salary and other emoluments of the employees of the TJML were considered by the pay commission appointed by the State Government time to time like that of other Government undertakings and statutory bodies. It is also admitted position that all the petitioners were employees of the TJML appointed in due process by the respondent, the Managing Director of TJML. The petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 283 of 2006, W.P.(C) No. 284 of 2006, W.P.(C) No. 285 of 2006, W.P.(C) No. 286 of 2006, W.P.(C) No. 287 of 2006, W.P.(C) No. 288 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No. 362 of 2011 were appointed as Lower Division Clerks. The petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 371 of 2006 was appointed as a Senior Assistant Production Manager. The petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 431 of 2006 was appointed as a Drawing Operator. The petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 432 of 2006 was appointed as a Group-D staff. The petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 191 of 2011 was appointed as a Security Guard.

It is, inter alia, contended by the petitioners that all the benefits, such as career advancement scheme as per ROP Rules 1999, were not granted to the petitioners and the petitioners were not given time bound scale movement as well as not promoted to the next higher grade.

The respondents contended that the company was running with heavy loss and the accumulated loss exceeded the authorized capital. The State Government to protect the interest of the employees of TJML, time to time provided financial assistance to the company. The pay of employees of TJML was also revised in 1999 as per 4th Tripura Pay Commission recommendation and benefit was given to the employees to the extent it was possible. ROP Rules 1999 was not directly applicable to the employees of TJML since there was separate pay rules for the employees of TJML. The petitioners were not entitled to any career advancement scheme and not entitled to time bound scale movement or promotion as prayed for.

It appears that Writ Appeal No. 74 of 2003 was filed challenging judgment and order dated 28.10.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 139 of 1997. The issue involved in that writ appeal has been summarily stated by the Division Bench in para-2 of the judgment, which read as follows:-

"2. The issue raised in the writ petition is as to whether the employees of the Tripura Jute Mills Ltd., a Govt. of Tripura undertaking, are entitled to the benefits of revision of pay at par with the State govt. employees and other Public Sector Undertakings including revised House Rent Allowance(HRA), Compensatory Allowance(CA), Career Advancement Scheme(CAS) and Dearness Allowance(DA). The learned single Judge having answered the issue in the negative, the petitioners have filed the instant appeal."

Learned counsel, Mr. Dutta, appearing for the petitioners prayed for granting similar benefits as has been granted by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 74 of 2003. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Single Bench and granted the benefits claimed by the petitioners. It was contended by the petitioners of that writ petition that the benefits of ROP Rules 1999 was given to 32 other public sector undertakings/statutory bodies, whereas TJML employees were deprived of the benefits of career advancement scheme and other allowances. The Division Bench considering all aspects allowed the appeal with the following observation/direction:-

"54. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that writ appeal and for that matter the writ petition deserves to be allowed and consequently we set aside and quash the impugned judgment and order dated 28.10.2003 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 139/1997. As a consequence, direction is issued to the respondents to treat the petitioners and for that matter the officers and employees of the TJM at par with their counterparts in other 32 organisations, entitling them to the revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and other allowances, such as, HRA, CA, CAS and DA etc."

In that judgment the High Court has held "whatever way the writ petition is decided, same will be binding on the officers and employees of the TJM." (para-31 of the judgment).

It is quite clear from the contents of that judgment passed by the Division Bench that the benefits of ROP Rules 1999 shall be made available to the officers and employees of TJML. That decision came on 08.04.2011. It is the case of the State respondents that the judgment delivered by the Division bench has been challenged in the Apex Court by filing a Special Leave Petition and the Special Leave Petition is pending. TJML and its Managing Director did not prefer any appeal challenging that judgment. The operation of that judgment has not been stayed by the Apex Court. So, in view of that judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioners are also entitled to get the benefit of ROP Rules 1999 including career advancement scheme as directed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal.

Taking a cue from the judgment passed by the Division Bench and after hearing learned counsel of both side, I am of considered opinion that the State respondents could not come out with any valid and acceptable reason to discriminate the officers and employees of TJML with that of the officers and employees of other public sector undertakings and statutory bodies. While the benefit of ROP Rules 1999 was made available to the officers and employees of other similarly situated public sector undertakings and statutory bodies, there was no valid reason for the State respondents to refuse the similar benefits available to the officers and employees of TJML. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to similar benefit as has been held by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 74 of 2003.

In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners further prayed for granting them promotion to the higher grade and time bound scale movement. Appointment, promotion etc. in a particular service, it is settled law, shall be guided by the service rules. The petitioners failed to produce any scheme or rule for granting them time bound movement to the higher pay scale or that of giving them promotion to the next higher grade. In the absence of any such cogent material placed on record, I find nothing to allow the benefit of time bound movement to the higher pay scale or promotion to the next higher grade.

The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed in terms of the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 74 of 2003. The petitioners will be entitled to the similar benefit as has been directed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 74 of 2003, which shall be subject to the ultimate decision of the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition filed against Writ Appeal No. 74 of 2003. The other reliefs claimed by the petitioners that of time bound scale movement and promotion to higher grade stand rejected.

The writ petitions are accordingly partly allowed and stands disposed of. Costs to be borne by the respective parties.