Tripura Government Teachers Association VsThe State of Tripura

S.C. Das, J.—Heard learned counsel, Mrs. S. Deb(Gupta) for the petitioners and learned Advocate General, Mr. B.C. Das, assisted by learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondents.

The petitioners'' Association by filing Civil Rule No. 374 of 1996 before Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court, inter alia, prayed for issuing a writ directing the respondents to grant the Headmasters/Headmistresses of the Primary/Junior Basic Schools, under the Government of Tripura, the pay scale of Rs. 1700-3980/- w.e.f. 01.01.1998 with all financial benefits, etc.

2.1. After hearing both side the Single Bench of the then Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 30.01.2004 and since the observation/direction given in the writ petition is relevant for decision of the present writ petition, para 5, 6 and 7 of the judgment is reproduced which reads as follows:

"5. At this stage my attention is drawn to the recommendations of the Fourth Tripura Pay Commission in respect of School Education Department. From this recommendations it is clear that the Pay Commission have also recognized the anomalous situation in which the members of the Association were placed by the State-respondents. The said recommendation is quoted below:-

RECOMMENDATION

The scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/- be allowed to the post of Head Master (Primary/J.B. School)

I may also refer to page-5 of the counter affidavit of the State-respondents which reads thus:-

"It may be mentioned here that according to the ROP Rules, 1988, Selection Grade Asstt. Teacher, Primary Establishment(which is admissible on completion of 17 years of service as Untrained Teacher or, 10 years service as Trained Teacher, whichever is earlier), which is also one of the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress(Primary/Junior basic School) have also been allowed the scale of Rs. 1300-3220/-.

Under the above circumstances, it was proposed to the Pay Anomaly Sub-Committee, as set up by the Government with reference to the ROP Rules, 1988, that a bit of higher scale be considered in respect of the Headmaster(Primary/Junior basic Schools) carrying the scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- as per Rules ibid. government decision on the recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Sub-Committee is still awaited. The above facts have also been brought to the notice of the petitioner''s Association as well as similar other recognized Associations in course of their deputations time to time."

A combined reading of the recommendation of the Fourth Tripura Pay Commission and the extract portion of the counter affidavit of the State-respondents shows that the state-respondents are also recognizing the anomalous position of the petitioner''s Association even though no decision to this effect appears to have been taken till date. In this connection, the learned Advocate General fairly conceded that there has been inordinate delay in taking a decision by the Government in this respect and suggests that this Court may pass direction to the State-respondents for taking a decision in terms of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission Report and the averment to that effect within a specific period of time. It may be reiterated here that the Fourth Pay Commission is an expert body constituted by the State-respondents and as such the recommendations of such Pay Commission are expected to carry due respect and weight. When an expert body, like Fourth Tripura Pay Commission, have made certain recommendations, it is incumbent upon the State-respondents to act upon such recommendation and if the State-respondents decided not to act upon such recommendation, they must show sufficient justification for not accepting such recommendation. The Fourth Tripura Pay Commission in their recommendation have observed that even though the headmaster has to discharge administrative functions apart from taking classes, no higher scale of pay is allowed and that since the scale of pay of feeder post is equal to that of promotion post nobody feels encouraged to shoulder extra burden with the scale of pay remaining unchanged. In addition to this observation it went on to say that the scale of pay being the same, it becomes difficult for the Headmaster to assume the role of one having superior status, creating in the process confusion and difficulty in administration. It is after examining the inherent problem faced by the petitioner''s Association in all these aspects, that the Fourth Pay Commission have recommended that the petitioner''s Association should be allowed to enjoy the pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/-. However, Mr. S. Talapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners, seriously expresses his reservation about the pay scale recommended by the Fourth Tripura Pay Commission and vehemently submits that keeping in view the higher responsibility and the status enjoyed by the administrative head, the pay scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission is on the lower side and nothing less than the pay scale of Rs. 1700-3980/- with actual financial benefit with effect from 1.1.1988 would do.

After carefully going through the materials on record and after hearing the submissions of the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the State-respondents shall consider and take a decision on implementing the recommendation of the Forth Tripura Pay Commission for fixing the scale of pay of the members of the petitioner''s Association at the pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- with actual financial benefit with effect from 1.1.1988 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner''s Association to approach this Court again if aggrieved by the order being passed by the State-respondents in connection with the aforesaid direction."

2.2. It is contended by the petitioners'' Association that pursuant to the above direction of the High Court, the respondents by issuing order dated 30.04.2004(Annexure-6 to the writ petition) removed the pay anomaly by granting the appropriate pay scale but has given effect of the same w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in lieu of 01.01.1988 and thereby disobeyed the direction given by the High Court in the judgment dated 30.01.2004. Para 4 of impugned order dated 30.04.2004, since very relevant is reproduced which reads thus--

"4. In the premises aforesaid, it will appear that the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission to remove the anomaly by granting same pay scale to both categories of Headmasters of Primary/Junior basic schools has already been implemented by granting them same revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-10,300/- with effect from 1.1.96, like all other appropriate cases of anomalies, any fresh exercise to remove the past anomaly from earlier date(1.1.1988) will open a flood gate letting in claims for financial benefits relating to a large number of other instances of pay anomalies imposing thereby a huge financial burden which the critical resource position of the State can ill afford to bear;

NOW, THEREFORE, after careful consideration of the practical financial implications in the aforesaid circumstances it is decided that the same pay scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission by way of removing anomaly cannot be implemented retrospectively with effect from 1.1.1988 in respect of members of the Tripura Government Teacher'' Association."

It is an admitted position that there was pay anomaly in respect of the pay of the Headmasters/Headmistresses of Primary/Junior Basic Schools under the Government of Tripura with reference to the ROP Rules, 1988. Though the Pay Anomaly Sub-Committee made recommendations for removal of the anomalies no effective order was passed by the respondents and the matter was kept pending for which the petitioners'' Association approached the High Court by filing Civil Rule No. 374 of 1996. Judgment dated 30.01.2004 passed by the High Court was not challenged in any superior forum and it holds good. A reading of para 6 of the judgment makes it clear that learned Advocate General fairly conceded that there was inordinate delay in taking a decision by the Government and so it was submitted before the Court that the Court may pass appropriate direction to the State respondents for taking a decision in terms of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission''s report within a specific period of time. While disposing the writ petition the Single Bench clearly directed the State respondents to consider and to take decision in respect of implementation of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission for fixing the scale of pay of the members of the petitioners'' Association at the pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- with actual financial benefit w.e.f. 01.01.1988 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and order. That order since stands good and was not challenged before any superior forum the State respondents were bound by that order. Whereas, while taking decision by order dated 30.04.2004, it is clear that the pay scale was given but the effect was given from 01.01.1996 and the removal of past anomaly w.e.f. 01.01.1988 was not allowed on the ground that it will open a flood gate.

Learned Advocate General has contended that the writ Court left it open to the consideration of the State Government in taking a decision and because of the financial stringency the State Government could not give effect from 01.01.1988 which is a valid reason and the Court''s order was not disobeyed or violated by the State respondents. According to learned Advocate General, the anomaly which was pointed out was of two-fold, firstly, in respect of pay scale and secondly, in respect of time of giving effect of the pay scale. The pay scale has been given and there is no dispute about it. Effect of the same as claimed from 01.01.1988 could not be given because the resource could not be mobilized by the State Government.

Learned counsel, Mrs. Deb(Gupta) has submitted that while a Pay Commission was set up and the Commission''s recommendation was accepted, the State respondents had no reason to deny the benefits accrued in favour of the petitioner''s Association pursuant to the recommendation and while the anomaly in the pay scale has been admitted, it has to be removed from the date the anomaly arose and the Court has given a specific direction to that effect which has not been abided by the State respondents.

It is the only contention of the respondents that the effect of the pay scale could not be given w.e.f. 01.01.1988 since it will open a flood gate. By making such a bold statement the benefits duly accrued in favour of the employees, cannot be taken away. I find no justification at all in the stand taken by the State respondents while refusing the benefits of pay scale claimed by the members of the petitioners'' Association. In my considered opinion, the petitioners'' Association is entitled to get the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.1988 and the respondents are directed to give the benefit w.e.f. 01.01.1988 within a period of 90(ninety) days from today.

The writ petition accordingly allowed and disposed of.

Parties to bear their own costs.