Allowed

Uttam Roy and Ors. v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC20 Jun 2017WP(C)/689/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding payment of duty allowance to Home Guards. Petitioner noted Supreme Court was directed to pay allowance. Supreme Court had held Central Government to bear 50% cost via circular. Court granted six months for implementation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents granted six months to implement the Supreme Court decision in Gram Rakshak case.

Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No	Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
20.06.	W. P.(C) No.689 of 2017 Sri Uttam Roy & Others ………… Petitioners – Vs – The State of Tripura & Others ………… Respondents For the petitioners:Mr. K. Nath, Advocate For the respondents:Mr. B. C. Das, Advocate General Mr. J. Majumder, Advocate B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA 2017** Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. C. Das, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. A very small issue is involved in this writ petition. By the judgment dated 11.03.2015 delivered in Civil Appeal No.2759 of 2015 [from SLP(C) No.12858/2009] [Gram Rakshak, Home Guards Welfare Association vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.]**the apex court has observed as under:
	*“22. In view of the* *discussion made above, no* *relief can be granted to the* *appellants either regularization of* *services* or *grant* of *regular* *appointments* *hence* no *interference is called for against* *the* *judgments* *passed* by *the* *Himachal* *Pradesh,* *Punjab* *and* *Delhi* *High* *Courts.* *However,* *taking into consideration the fact*

Noting by Officer or Serial Date
Advocate No

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

20.06.

W. P.(C) No.689 of 2017
Sri Uttam Roy & Others
………… Petitioners
– Vs –
The State of Tripura & Others
………… Respondents
For the petitioners**:Mr. K. Nath, Advocate
For the respondents:Mr. B. C. Das,
Advocate General
Mr. J. Majumder,
Advocate

B E F O R E
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
2017
Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr.
B. C. Das, learned Advocate General
assisted by Mr. J. Majumder, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
A very small issue is involved in
this writ petition.
By the judgment dated 11.03.2015
delivered in Civil Appeal No.2759 of 2015
[from
SLP(C)
No.12858/2009]
[Gram
Rakshak,
Home
Guards
Welfare
Association vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh & Ors.]**the apex court has
observed as under:

“22. In view of the
discussion made above, no
relief can be granted to the
appellants either regularization of
services
or
grant
of
regular
appointments
hence
no
interference is called for against
the
judgments
passed
by
the
Himachal
Pradesh,
Punjab
and
Delhi
High
Courts.
However,
taking into consideration the fact

Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No	Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
	*that Home Guards are used during* *the* *emergency* *and* *for* *other* *purposes and at the time of their* *duty they are empowered with the* *power of police personnel, we are* of *the* *view* *that* *the* *State* *Government should pay them the* *duty allowance at such rates, total* *of which 30 days (a month) comes* *to minimum of the pay to which* *the police personnel of State are* *entitled. It is expected that the* *State* *Governments* *shall* *pass* *appropriate orders in terms of* *aforesaid observation on an early* *date* *preferably* *within* *three* *months.”*
	There is no controversy that the petitioners are the Home Guards working under the Home Guards Organisation, Government of Tripura. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this court, a communication dated 21.04.2016 made to the Director General of Police, Government of Tripura, Agartala, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The text of the said communication considering its
	relevance is entirely extracted hereinbelow. *“URGENT* *SUPREME COURT CASE MATTER* *No.F.13(65)-PD/15/106* *GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA* *HOME DEPARTMENT*
	To *The Director General of Police,* *Tripura, Agartala*
	*Dated, Agartala, the 21th April,* *2016* *Subject: Ref. Judgment & Order* *dated* *11.03.2015* *passed* by *Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in* *Civil Appeal No.6373 of 2010 and* *Civil* *Appeal* *No.2759* of *2015*

Noting by Officer or Serial Date
Advocate No

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

that Home Guards are used during
the
emergency
and
for
other
purposes and at the time of their
duty they are empowered with the
power of police personnel, we are
of
the
view
that
the
State
Government should pay them the
duty allowance at such rates, total
of which 30 days (a month) comes
to minimum of the pay to which
the police personnel of State are
entitled. It is expected that the
State
Governments
shall
pass
appropriate orders in terms of
aforesaid observation on an early
date
preferably
within
three
months.”

There is no controversy that the
petitioners are the Home Guards working
under the Home Guards Organisation,
Government of Tripura.
Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the
petitioners has brought to the notice of
this
court,
a
communication
dated
21.04.2016 made to the Director General
of Police, Government of Tripura, Agartala,
Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The text of
the said communication considering its

relevance
is
entirely
extracted
hereinbelow.
“URGENT
SUPREME COURT CASE MATTER
No.F.13(65)-PD/15/106
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
HOME DEPARTMENT

To
The Director General of Police,
Tripura, Agartala

Dated, Agartala, the 21th April,
2016
Subject: Ref. Judgment & Order
dated
11.03.2015
passed
by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Civil Appeal No.6373 of 2010 and
Civil
Appeal
No.2759
of
2015

Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No	Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
	*[arising out of SLP(C) No.12858 of* *2009].* *Sir,* *I am directed to refer to the* *judgment* & *order* *dated* *11.03.2015* *passed* by *Hon’ble* *Supreme Court of India in Civil* *Appeal No.6373 of 2010 and Civil* *Appeal No.2759 of 2015 and to* *state that as requested by Finance* *Department,* *Government* of *Tripura, the matter was taken up* *with Ministry of Home Affairs,* *Government of India for sharing of* *funds* *for* *payment* of *duty* *allowance to the Home Guards* *Volunteers for complying with the* *directions of the Hon’ble Supreme* *Court.* *The* *Ministry* of *Home* *Affairs, Government of India vide* *a letter No.1-36011/3/2015-DGCD* *(HG), dated 5th January, 2016* *along with a copy of Financial* *Policy of Home Guards issued by* *Government of India, Ministry of* *Home Affairs vide No.II-17018/* *41/93-DGCD(CD),* *dated* *3rd* *February, 1997 (copies enclosed)* *has stated that as per the existing* *financial policy, the expenditure* *on duty allowance is payable by* *the agency called Home Guards for* *duty.*
	*In View of the above, I am* *directed to request you to kindly* *furnish your views in this regard* *and also indicate the amount of* *expenditure to be borne by the* *State* *Government* *for* *implementation* of *direction* of *Hon’ble Supreme Court.*
	*Enclo: As Stated.*
	*Yours faithfully,* *Sd/- Illigible* *(Arup Deb)* *Under Secretary to the* _Government of Tripura” _
	Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that
	there was another initiative for taking a
	decision in this regard, as would be

Noting by Officer or Serial Date
Advocate No

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

[arising out of SLP(C) No.12858 of
2009].
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the
judgment
&
order
dated
11.03.2015
passed
by
Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal No.6373 of 2010 and Civil
Appeal No.2759 of 2015 and to
state that as requested by Finance
Department,
Government
of
Tripura, the matter was taken up
with Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India for sharing of
funds
for
payment
of
duty
allowance to the Home Guards
Volunteers for complying with the
directions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
The
Ministry
of
Home
Affairs, Government of India vide
a letter No.1-36011/3/2015-DGCD
(HG), dated 5th January, 2016
along with a copy of Financial
Policy of Home Guards issued by
Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs vide No.II-17018/
41/93-DGCD(CD),
dated
3rd
February, 1997 (copies enclosed)
has stated that as per the existing
financial policy, the expenditure
on duty allowance is payable by
the agency called Home Guards for
duty.

In View of the above, I am
directed to request you to kindly
furnish your views in this regard
and also indicate the amount of
expenditure to be borne by the
State
Government
for
implementation
of
direction
of
Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Enclo: As Stated.

Yours faithfully,
Sd/- Illigible
(Arup Deb)
Under Secretary to the
_Government of Tripura” _

Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the
petitioners has further submitted that

there was another initiative for taking a

decision in this regard, as would be

Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No	Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature
	evident from the communication dated 25.04.2016, Annexure-3 to the writ petition. From the communication dated 05.01.2016, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, it further appears that there was request made to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to share the financial burden in implementing the said judgment of the apex court in respect of existing 1050 Home Guards working in the
	State of Tripura. By the said communication dated 05.01.2016, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had informed the Home Department to the Government of Tripura, that as per existing financial policy the expenditure of duty allowance, payable to Home Guards is to be shared in a manner as reflected in the circular dated 03.02.1997, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It appears from the said circular that for the North Eastern States the Government of India shall bear 50% of the financial requirement. The remainder is to be borne by the State Government. When the Ministry of Home Affairs has referred to the circular, it can be comfortably derived that the Government of India shall bear 50% of the total financial requirement that would be required for implementing the judgment of the apex court in respect of the duty allowance. In view of the above sharing of the financial requirement, there would not be much difficult for the State Government to

Noting by Officer or Serial Date
Advocate No

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

evident from the communication dated
25.04.2016,
Annexure-3
to
the
writ
petition.
From the communication dated
05.01.2016,
Annexure-4
to
the
writ
petition, it further appears that there was
request made to the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Government of India to share the
financial burden in implementing the said
judgment of the apex court in respect of
existing 1050 Home Guards working in the

State
of
Tripura.
By
the
said
communication
dated
05.01.2016,
the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India had informed the Home Department
to the Government of Tripura, that as per
existing financial policy the expenditure of
duty allowance, payable to Home Guards
is to be shared in a manner as reflected in
the circular dated 03.02.1997, Annexure-5
to the writ petition. It appears from the
said circular that for the North Eastern
States the Government of India shall bear
50% of the financial requirement. The
remainder is to be borne by the State
Government.
When the Ministry of Home Affairs
has referred to the circular, it can be
comfortably derived that the Government
of India shall bear 50% of the total
financial
requirement
that
would
be
required for implementing the judgment of
the apex court in respect of the duty
allowance.
In view of the above sharing of the
financial requirement, there would not be
much difficult for the State Government to

Noting by Officer or
Advocate

Serial Date
No

Office notes, reports, orders or
Proceedings with signature

implement the said judgment. However, it
should be noted there is no escape from
implementing the said judgment.
In view of this and as agreed to, by
the learned Advocate General this writ
petition is disposed of with the following
direction.
The
respondents
are
granted
further six months time to implement the
decision of the apex court in**Gram
Rakshak,
Home
Guards
Welfare
Association**(supra).
To that extent, the writ petition
stands allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Uttam Roy and Ors. v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Roy and Ors. v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradip Debbarma Vs Narendra Paul and Anr.

The National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Swapna Deb Laskar and Ors.

Subhash Ch. Datta Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sajal Das Vs Union of India and Ors.

Subha Laxmi Debbarma Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Sashi Mohan Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.