1. The respondents of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.617 of 2015 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 31.08.2016, has filed this petition seeking clarification of the said judgment and order as, according to those respondents, they find difficulty in understanding and implementing the said judgment and order. For purpose of dispelling quality or for having determinative purport, they have approached this Court. According to those respondents, on analysis of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (12th Amendment) Rules, 2015 and 6th Central Pay Commission, it would transpire that the scale of pay for some posts viz. Personal Assistant (P.A.)-II, Accounts Officer, Bench Clerk (UDC Grade), Bench Clerk (LDC Grade), Driver, Bailiff, Process Servers, Duftry etc. are non-existent in the Central Government. As such, 6th Central Pay Commission had no occasion to spell out the scale for those posts, but the respondents, the petitioners herein, have provided the equivalent, if not higher benefits of pay by the ROP (12th Amendment) Rules, 2015. The respondents in the writ petition, the petitioners herein, have thus averred in their petition as under:
"In respect of the post of Junior Sheristadar it is
stated that the existing scale as on 31.03.2003 at
the entry level was Rs.5,000-10,300/- in the State
of Tripura, the recommendation of the Shetty
Commission is same; after the ROP(12th
Amendment) Rules, 2015 pay in pay band was
allowed Rs.5,700-24,000/- and grade pay was
provided Rs.4,200/-; whereas the 6th Central Pay
Commission recommended pay in pay band of
Rs.9,300-34,800/- and grade pay was
recommended Rs.4,200/-. For instance, if a person
is having basic pay of Rs.5,000/- in the post of
Junior Sheristadar w.e.f. 01.04.2003, his basic pay
would be hiked to Rs.5,130/- w.e.f. 01.04.2003 as
per the recommendation of the Shetty Commission
and in next two years his basic pay would further
be hiked to Rs.5,390/- due to two yearly
increments. After applying Multiplying Factor of
1.86 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the employees basic hikes
to Rs.10,030/- with grade pay of Rs.4,200/-; thus,
the basic pay of the employee hikes to Rs.14,230/-
which is much more than the Recommendations of
the 6th Central Pay Commission. Further, if a
person enters in the existing post of Junior
Sheristadar after 01.01.2006, his entry pay without
adding Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- would not be less
than Rs.9,300/- (Rs.5000 x 1.86), which same as
the Recommendations of the 6th Central Pay
Commission."
2. According to the respondents in the writ petition, there
remained nothing to be implemented in terms of the judgment of
the apex court as well of this court. It is to be noted that in the said
judgment, it has been observed, if read with he correction made by
the order dated 02.09.2016, as under :
"The arrears by way of difference till 31.03.2016
shall be paid by the respondents in a lump sum or
in 4(four) equal installments and such payment
shall be made within 31.03.2017. The other
benefits shall also be released in terms of the 6th
Central Pay Commission recommendations."
[Emphasis added]
3. The respondents in the said writ petition being W.P.(C)
No.617 of 2015 have averred to illustrate that what they have
provided by way of ROP (12th Amendment) Rules, 2015 that is
higher than what the employees of the subordinate judiciary would
receive, if the pay scales are revised or upgraded in terms of 6th CPC
recommendation. In this regard, what has been observed in the
judgment dated 31.08.2016 is deemed apposite to be referred:
"......it is to be noted that the apex court has
clearly spelt out that no less pay can be given to
the employees of the subordinate judiciary beyond
what has been recommended by the Shetty
Commission and what has been ordered by the
apex court."
4. The restriction that is framed and laid down in the order of the apex court dated 16.03.2015 is unequivocal as it stipulates that the employees of the subordinate judiciary cannot be given lesser pay then what has been recommended by the Shetty Commission. Even the petitioner of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.617 of 2015, the respondent herein, has clearly averred in the reply as under:
"3. That the package includes the basic pay
structure and other financial benefits included in
the 6th Central Pay Commission Recommendation.
As regards the pay structure, the State, by a
notification dated 10.09.2015 introduced an ROP
only for the staff of subordinate judiciary with
reference to the Shetty Commission
Recommendation. The said ROP has made
appropriate and proper arrangement for fitment of
the posts available in Tripura judiciary but not in
the recommendation of the Shetty Commission.
Thus, the posts available in the Tripura judicial
establishment which are not available in the
recommendation by the Shetty Commission has
been adjusted in the said notification. The
employees represented by the respondent here
have no grievance against the pay structure and
fitment made in the said notification dated
10.09.2015."
5. According to the writ petitioner, the respondent in this
petition, has asserted that the ''other benefits'' have been directed to
be released by the said judgment dated 31.08.2016 in terms of 6th
Central Pay Commission recommendation. As such, there surfaces
no equivocality or confusion which might call for clarification by this
court. The writ petitioner has placed on records various orders
issued by the Government of India in terms of 6th Central Pay
Commission, such as the office memorandum dated 29.08.2008. The
writ petitioner has formed a comparative statement of allowances
entitled to the employees of the Central Government and the
employees of the State Government [Annexure-A to their reply]. For
purpose of reference, the said comparative statement of allowances
are extracted in full hereunder:
"Comparative Statement of Allowances of Central Govt. Employees &
Employees Of State Govt. of Tripura
[Emphasis added]
However, the respondents have also asserted in their
reply that ''the Supreme Court has included in the package all
benefits available under the Sixth Central Pay Commission
recommendation. Such recommended package includes
various allowances such as, HRA, Conveyance Allowance,
Special Duty Allowance (SDA), Special Compensatory Hill
Areas Allowance, Children Education Allowance (CEA),
Productivity Linked Bonus and DA (Central)''.| Sl. No. | Central Govt. EMPLOYEES w.e.f. 01.09.2008 | EMPLOYEES OF STATE GOVT. OF TRIPURA |
| 1 | HRA- 10% of basic pay without any ceiling Vide No.2(13)/2008-E.II(B), dt. 29.08.2008 (Annexure- 1A) | HRA - 10% of basic pay with a ceiling of Rs.2000/- Vide No. 5(3)-FIN(G)/09, 05.05.2009 (Annexure- 1B) |
| 2 | Transport (Conveyance) Allowances (TA), Vide No. 21(2)/2008-E.II(B), dt. 29.08.2008 (Annexure- 2A) | Nil |
| 3 | Special (Duty) Allowances (SDA) Vide No. 11(5)/2008- E.II(B), dt. 29.08.2008 (Annexure- 3A) | Nil |
| 4 | Special Compensatory (Remote Locality) Allowances (SCA) Vide No. 3(1)/2008- E.II(B), dt. 29.08.2008 (Annexure- 4A) | Nil |
| 5 | Special Compensatory (Hill Areas) Allowances (SCA)Vide No.4(2)/2008-E.II(B), dt. 29.08.2008 (Annexure- 5A) | Nil |
| 6 | Children Education Allowances (CEA) Vide No. 12011/03/2008- Estt.(Allowance), dt. 02.09.2008 (Annexure-6A) | Nil |
| 7 | Productivity Linked Bonus (PLB) & Ad-hoc Bonus Vide No. 7(23)/E.III-A/2007, dt. 10.10.2008 (Annexure- 7A) | Nil |
| 8 | DA (Central)(Annexure- 8A) | DA as per State (Annexure- 8B) |
| 9 | Comparison statement of Central DA and state DA (Annexure- 9A) | |
| 10. | WASHING ALLOWANCES Washing Allowance @ Rs.60/- pm (Rate of WA will be increased 25% every time in increase of DA by 50%.(Annexure- 10A) | WASHING ALLOWANCES Washing Allowance @ Rs.60/- pm only Vide No.5(3)- FIN(G)/2009, dt. 05.05.2009 (Annexure-10B) |
| 11 | LTCOnce in every four years Block Vide No. 31011/4/2008- Estt.(A), dt. 23.09.2008 (Annexure- 11A) | LTCThree times during the whole service life subject first LTC after completion of 10 years of service Vide No. F.5(2)- FIN(G)/2009, dt. 16.05.2009 (Annexure- 11B) |
| GRATUITYMaximum Gratuity is limited to Rs.10,00,000/- | GRATUITYMaximum Gratuity is limited to Rs.4,00,000/- only. |
6. The respondents in the writ petition [the petitioners in this petition for clarification] by filing a rejoinder have stated that in Para-18 of the judgment dated 16.03.2015, the apex court makes it clear that as far as the special benefits such as Medical Allowance, Special Allowance or Travelling Allowance, Special Pay are concerned, such benefits should be continued to be maintained from 01.04.2003 upto 31.12.2005 and after 01.01.2006 also. There was no direction, according to the respondents in the writ petition, now the writ petitioner has been seeking clarification indirectly. Unless the apex court had passed an order in respect of House Rent Allowance, Conveyance Allowance, Special Duty Allowance, Special compensatory Hill Areas Allowance, Children Education Allowance, Productivity Linked Bonus and D.A., those benefits cannot be treated as part of the package under the Shetty Commission recommendation. The petitioners, the respondents in the writ petition, have further averred that: "The employees of subordinate judiciary are guided by ROP Rules of the State Government of Tripura. Therefore, they receive the allowance as applicable to employees under the State Government. Notification dated 10.09.2015 has been issued in compliance to Apex Court order and therein it is mentioned that Medical Allowance, Special Allowance, Travelling Allowance and Special Pay shall also be admissible to the staff of subordinate judiciary at rates and conditions as applicable to the State Government employees in the equivalent ranks."
[Emphasis added]
7. Whether such interpretation as given by the respondents
in the writ petition is at all required in view of the judgment dated
31.08.2016 where it has been unequivocally observed on discarding
the objection of similar nature raised by the respondents in the writ
petition that the ''other benefits'' shall also be released in terms of
the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation. The financial
constraint cannot be a ground to extend such benefit to the writ
petitioner. Since the respondents of the writ petition, in an
appreciable manner has interpreted and resolved the conundrum of
having some posts which are not available in the 6th Central Pay
Commission. The writ petitioner has not expressed any grievance
against the said structure. It is therefore apparent that so far the
pay scales are concerned, there lies no dispute after introduction of
the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (12th Amendment)
Rules, 2015. When the 6th Central Pay Commission recommended
the pay scales for the different grades of the employees, they
determined the pay scales keeping in consideration the total pay
package which would be supplemented by various allowances and
thus, the said allowances as referred in the comparative statement
by the writ petitioners are the part of the benefits of 6th Central Pay
Commission. The writ petitioner and the employees of the
subordinate judiciary are entitled to those benefits, which they are
otherwise entitled against their position and place of posting. Those
''benefits'' would mean all such allowances and financial inputs,
approved and released by the Government of India for benefit of
their employees in the various grades.
The respondents in the writ petition [the petitioners in
this petition for clarification] cannot, therefore, be permitted to hold
that the employees of the subordinate judiciary would be entitled to
various allowances, as referred above, ''at the rates and conditions''
as applicable to the State Government employees in the equivalent
rank. The pay package as declared by the Shetty Commission has
been consciously delinked from the State pay scale for giving it a
uniform and national character. These objections or contentions had
been considered in the judgment dated 31.08.2016 in the Para-12.
The observation in the para-12 was made having referred to Para-20
of the order of the apex court dated 16.03.2015 delivered in I.A.
No.279 in I.A. No.71-A in W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989. In the said
order, the apex court has observed and passed the directions in the
manner as under:
"20. In the light of our above conclusion, we direct
as under:
i. Such of those States other than the States of
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Assam, Punjab and
Haryana and West Bengal, wherever the Shetty
Commission has tabulated the financial
estimate on the recommendations in the report
as has been noted and extracted with reference
to NCT of Delhi wherein any special allowance,
medical allowance TA/special pay were
directed to be given on monthly basis, such
payment should be continued to be made w.e.f.
01.04.2003 and even after the coming into
effect of the 6th Pay Commission
recommendation from 01.01.2006 till any
modification or revision is made with reference
to such allowances/TA/special pay in any
future Pay Commission recommendation of the
State or Centre.
ii. Wherever under the Shetty Commission
recommendation, a higher scale of pay is
recommended in the said tabular format for
any category of employees apart from applying
such higher scale of pay for the period
01.04.2003 up to 31.12.2005 as from
01.01.2006, the corresponding revision should
be only with reference to such higher pay scale
recommended and made applicable to those
categories of employees as revised under the
6th Pay Commission Report and which came to
be implemented from 01.01.2006. Instead of
adopting the said manner of payment, if any of
the States had resorted to the revised payscale
corresponding to the scale of pay which
was existing prior to the recommendation of
the Shetty Commission Report, the States are
hereby directed to rectify such defect and
calculate the revised pay-scale on the above
footing as directed by us, work out the
difference payable to those categories of
employees payable from 01.01.2006 and effect
such a payment with effect from the month of
April, 2015 payable in May, 2015. The arrears
of the difference payable for the past period
ending with March, 2015 should be paid in one
lump sum or in installments, in any case within
nine months from the date of this judgment i.e.
on or before 31.12.2015.
iii. Insofar as one advance increment which
was recommended by the Shetty Commission
for all the common category posts for whom no
other scale of pay other than what was
existing, is concerned, as directed by this Court
in the order dated 07.10.2009, if such advance
increment had been paid based on the existing
pay-scale, there is no need for making any
further payment on that account. It is needless
to state that if for any reason, such advance
increment on the existing pay-scale has been
omitted to be paid in those cases the concerned
State Government should effect the payment as
directed in our order dated 07.10.2009.
iv. It is reiterated that the above direction in
regard to the implementation of 6th Pay
Commission recommendation will hold good
even for implementation of any future pay
Commission recommendation.
v. Whatever pending applications before the
High Court on the administrative side or on the
judicial side shall be considered and disposed
of expeditiously preferably within three
months."
[Emphasis added]
8. It has been clearly observed there that implementation
of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation will hold good
even for implementation of any future pay commission
recommendation. There is no difficulty in understanding the meaning
and purport of such direction. The respondents in the writ petition
[the petitioners in this petition for clarification] are put under
obligation to implement the 6th Central Pay Commission
recommendation, which are not restricted to the pay scales only. It
was observed in the judgment dated 31.08.2016 as under:
''The other benefits shall also be released in terms
of the 6th Central Pay Commission
recommendation.''
[Emphasis added]
When the ''other benefits'' are delinked from the pay
scales, those shall invariably mean and imply the allowances those
are extended to the Central Government employees and hence the
employees of the subordinate judiciary shall get all such allowances,
emanating from 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation as the
''other benefits'' in terms of the said judgment.
9. This court is of the considered view that this petition filed by the respondents in the writ petition is superfluous and should not evoke any response from this court. The learned Advocate General has quite candidly submitted that the ''other benefits'' can have a meaning in the context but since there is some ''confusion'' they filed this petition seeking clarification so that they can implement the said judgment dated 31.08.2016 within time. If the respondents in the writ petition are so desirous of external aid, they would be at liberty to utilise the observations made hereunder.
10. Having observed thus, this petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
