logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 THC 290 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Tripura
Case No : WP(C) No. 104 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Parties : Kriti Sundar Sarkar & Others Versus The State of Tripura, To be represented by the Secretary, Government of Tripura & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Roy Barman, Senior Advocate, S. Bhattacharjee, K. Nath, S. Deb. Barman, D. Paul, A. Debbarma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, Government Advocate, R. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 22-06-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 THC 760,
Judgment :-

Judgment & Order (Oral)

1. This present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

               “(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/ directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to give one advance increment to the Petitioners as per Rule 13(1)(ii) of Tripura States Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009.

               (ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/ directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby quashing the Memo., dated, 06.07.2011, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura shall not be set aside and quashed.

               (iii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/ directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to grant benefit of one advance increment to the Petitioners in view of the fact, that, Sri Bimal Sen. PGT, one of the Petitioner in W.P(C) 328/ 2021, who obtained B.Ed Degree on 11.10.2010, was granted one advance increment as training incentive in compliance of the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court by the said judgment and the Petitioners and said Sri Bimal Sen was absolutely similarly situated for the simple and obvious reason that Sri Bimal Sen and the Petitioners Nos 1 & 2 obtained B.Ed degree on the same date.

               (iv) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/ directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to grant benefit of one advance increment to the Petitioners, as the instant Petitioner and the beneficiaries of the Memo., dated, 19.12.2023, (Sri Tapas Debnath & Sri Sandip Roy) are absolutely similarly situated.

               (v) Make the rules absolute.

               (vi) Call for records.

               (vii) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered fit and proper.

               And

               For this act of kindness, your humble Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

2. Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, learned G.A., appearing for the respondents.

3. It is seen from the record that petitioners has submitted legal notice dated 14.12.2023 agitating their grievance before the respondents. However, it is seen from the record that the said legal notice is still unattended by the concerned respondents till date.

4. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, this present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the legal notice dated 14.12.2023 in accordance with law within a period of 3(three) months from the date of the receipt of this order. Any such decision taken shall be communicated by the respondents to the petitioners herein.

5. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal