Dismissed

Prasun Kanti Chakraborty v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC4 May 2017WP(C)/437/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, sought an advance increment as a training incentive. The court held that since the petitioner did not complete the training course in one go, he was ineligible for the advance increment, which was reserved for those who passed in a single attempt prior to May 5, 2009. The writ petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Prasun Kanti Chakraborty Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

WP(C)437 of 2016

¶3

Sri Prasun Kanti Chakraborty, son of late Promode Ranjan Chakraborty, resident of Village- East Howai Bari, P.O. Howai Bari, P.S. Teliamura, District : Khowai

¶4

…………Petitioner

¶5

– Vs –

¶6

The State of Tripura, (to be represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Tripura), New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799006

¶7

The Director of School Education, Government of Tripura, Old Secretariat Complex, Akhura Road, Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala, District : West Tripura, PIN : 799001

¶8

The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799006

¶9

………… Respondents

¶10

B E F O R E

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶12

For the petitioner : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. T.D. Majumder, G.A. Date of delivery of : 04.05.2017 Judgment and order Whether fit for reporting : NO

¶13

Judgment and Order (Oral)

¶14

Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing

¶15

for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A.

¶16

appearing for all the respondents.

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

WP(C)437 of 2016

¶19

There is no dispute that the petitioner joined in the post of Assistant Teacher on 30.10.1987. Surprisingly, the writ petitioner is totally silent about whether he had cleared the Elementary Teacher’s Education from the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in one go or not.

¶20

The respondents by filing the reply has specifically asserted that the petitioner could not complete the said course/ training in one go. Along with the reply, the respondents have produced one proforma for furnishing proposal for the benefit of Training, Incentive as per the Finance Department Notification No. F.6(1)-FIN(PC)/08 dated 06.01.2011 [Annexure R.1 to the reply].

¶21

It would be apparent that the petitioner made his first attempt to clear the said course/training in the year 2007 and he made the second attempt in the year 2008. The petitioner has not disputed that position. But the petitioner has raised another question that those who have not completed the training/course in one go have been given the benefit under Rule 13(v) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 following the system that prevailed prior to 05.05.2009.

¶22

Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted further that the petitioner may also be given the advance increment instead of lump sum financial benefit as accorded by the respondents.

¶23

Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has categorically submitted that by filing the reply, the respondents have denied that benefit of the training incentive in the shape of one advance increment was given to the persons

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

WP(C)437 of 2016

¶26

whose names are appearing in the Para-12 of the writ petition as they did complete the course/training in one go.

¶27

Be that as it may, if some persons are given such benefit, in contravention of the rule that cannot create a right in favour of any other person who does qualify in accordance to the relevant rule, to approach this court on the ground that the executive has practised discrimination and thus the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India would come to rescue of such person. Rule 13(1) of the ROP Rules, 1999 deals with training incentive. Para- V under the said Rule 13 is relevant and that provides as under :

¶28

“(v) In respect of following categories of employees the existing system of providing training incentive in the form of one increment is replaced with lump sum incentive grant indicated in table below ;

¶29

Category of training	Category of employee involved	Duration of training	Lump sum incentive amount
B. Ed.	Teacher	One year	Rs. 3000/-
T. Ed.	Teacher	Six months	Rs. 2000/-
CETE	Teacher	Six months	Rs. 2000/-
UGBT	Teacher	One year	Rs. 2500/-
CPE	Teacher	Six months	Rs. 1500/-
VLW training	Agri Asst	1+1 = 2 years	Rs. 2500/-
Forestry training	Forester	One year	Rs. 2500/-
B.P. Ed	PI (recruited under old RR)	One year	Rs. 3000/-
Accounts	Clerks	Six months	Rs. 2000/-

¶30

Note : This system of providing lump sum incentive grant will take effect from 1st January, 2009 for all cases who have completed training on or after 1.1.2009.”

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

¶33

There is no dispute that the said rule has been supplemented by way of Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay](5th Amendment) Rules, 2009 by inserting a Note-2 after the existing note appended below Rule 13(1)(v) as under :

¶34

“The employees who had completed the full training course and appeared in the end of term examination prior to 05.05.2009 i.e. before publication of the TSCS (RP) Rules, 2009 and passed the examination in all subjects in one attempt, shall be exempted from the operation of Rules 13(1)(v) and will be entitled to training incentive in the form of advance increment.”

¶35

Having considered the averments and the replies thereof, and on appreciation of the provisions made under Rule 13(1)(v) of the ROP Rules, 1999 read with the amendment as incorporated by the Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pay](5th Amendment) Rules, 2009 this court is of the considered view that since the petitioner could not complete the training programme in one go the petitioner cannot get the training incentive in the form of advance increment and as such, this writ petition stands dismissed as bereft of merit.

¶36

There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Sabyasachi.B

Page 4 of 4

Prasun Kanti Chakraborty v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prasun Kanti Chakraborty v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Tripura and Ors. Vs Ashok Datta and Ors.

Deputy Chief Engineer Const. N.F. Railway Vs Gouranga Ch. Sur

Haradhan Debnath Vs Raimohan Debnath and Ors.

Ashu Malakar and Ors. Vs Somnath Bhattacharjee and Ors.

Subal Das Vs the State of Tripura

Trtc Motor Workers Union Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.