Sri Nirmal Debbarma and another v. The State of Tripura and 3 others
Court: High Court of Tripura
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Tripura judgment dated 2024-12-17. Sri Nirmal Debbarma and another v. The State of Tripura and 3 others. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) 268/2024 1. Sri Nirmal Debbarma, son of Sri Rati Ranjan Debbarma, resident of near Manik Chandra Para AWC Centre, Manik Chandra Para, P. O. Janme Joynagar, District- West Tripura. 2. Sri Parimal Debbarma, son of Sri Usha Ranjan Debbarma, resident of Kambuk Chara, P. O. Subal Singh, P. S. Sidhai, Mohanpur, District- West Tripura. ----Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799006. 2. Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin- 799006. 3. The Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura, P. O. Agartala, P. S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura 4. Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, P. O. Kunjaban, P. S. New Capital Complex, District-West Tripura.
----Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, GA Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 17/12/2024 Heard Mr. K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the respondents. By means of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “a) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Respondents should not transmit all records relating to the case of the Petitioners; b) As to why Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the State respondents to grant the benefit of one increment as per Rule 13(1)(ii) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 alongwith all financial benefits w. e. f. 05. 11. 2015 i. e.
date of regularization of service of the petitioners; c) As to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents to grant all financial benefits to the petitioners as per the Judgment & Order dated 19. 03. 2021 passed in WP(C) 703 of 2019 by this Hon’ble High Court; d) As to why such other order/orders should not be passed so as to give full relief to the Petitioners and upon causes shown to make the Rule absolute;” In course of hearing, learned GA appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that the petitioners are eligible to get one advance increment as per government policy. In para 6 and 10 of the counter affidavit, it is also admitted that the petitioners are entitled to get one advance increment since they possess B. Ed. Degree prior to joining their services. In view of the above submission, the instant writ petition stands allowed.
However, the respondents are directed to release the benefit of one advance increment within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this copy of order and regularize the service of the petitioners. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed and thus disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed. JUDGE Digitally signed by SAIKAT KAR SAIKAT KAR Date: 2024. 12. 17 14:08:48 +05'30'
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.