Heard learned counsel of both sides.

The contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance of the judgment dated 20.08.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in case No.WP(C) 777 of 2023 in between Juled Hossen and others vs. the State of Tripura and others. The relevant portions of the observations of the learned Bench along with the direction made therein are extracted hereunder:

               “It is further observed that the pay scale of the petitioners was wrongly fixed at the very initiation of their appointment. The Department should not overlook the fact that the Government of Tripura has decided to amalgamate the post of Junior Technician and Senior Technician and redesignate the same as “Technician” with an upgraded pay scale of Rs.4200/- to Rs.8650/-, which fact has also not been disputed by the State- respondents. However, according to the State- respondents, the relevant recruitment rules is required to be amended, which is under process. It is also stated and submitted by learned Addl. GA that as soon as it is modified, the upgraded pay scale would be granted to the petitioners.

               The petitioners were appointed in the year 2009. It was the duty and responsibility of the Education Department under the respondents to issue advertisement in terms of the ROP Rules, 2004. However, the petitioners also were not found to be serious about the matter and they have filed the instant writ petition claiming the upgraded pay scale of Rs.4200/- to Rs.8650/- only in the year 2023. However, it is equally to be considered that the delay in agitating the grievance of the writ petitioners cannot obliviate the State- respondents to discharge their own responsibilities. The department must expedite the matter because non- granting of the legitimate pay scale to the petitioners is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

               It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that other employees in the same Education Department have already been provided with the upgraded pay scale without having amendment of the relevant recruitment rules. If this be the case, then the respondents must take into consideration the above fact of granting upgranded pay scale to those employees without amending the recruitment rules in granting the upgraded pay scale to the petitioners.

               For the reasons stated and discussed here-in- above, I direct the State-respondents to remove the anomalies  and  grant  the  regular  pay  scale  to  the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of 3(three) months from today.

               It is made clear that the respondents shall fix the pay scale of the petitioners notionally with effect from the date of their appointment and they shall be paid the arrears of salary in terms of the upgraded pay scale of Rs.4200/- to Rs.8650/- for the three years immediately preceding the date of filing of the instant writ petition i.e. w.e.f. 12.12.2023.

               The instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed in the above terms.

               Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.”

During hearing, Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has placed an order dated 06.11.2025 passed by Addl. Secretary & Director, Education (Higher) Department, Govt. of Tripura whereby the benefit of fixation of pay scale of petitioners has been ordered to be upgraded from Rs.4000-7890/- to Rs.4200-8650/-, notionally w.e.f. 18.06.2009, i.e., their date of appointment along with arrears of salary to be paid for the three years immediately preceding the date of filing of the writ petition.

Now, it is the grievance of the petitioners as submitted by Mrs. Sujata Deb (Gupta), learned counsel that already benefit of pay scale meant for the technician has been provided to the petitioners but they are not being allowed to use the designation ‘technician’ and even in order dated 06.11.2025, their designation has been mentioned as junior technician notwithstanding the fact that in the judgment itself as quoted earlier it was observed by the Court that the post of junior technician and senior technician were amalgamated and were re-designated as technician.

Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. in this regard submits that though in the order dated 06.11.2025, their designation has been mentioned as junior technician but for all practical purposes their designation would be technician.

Considered the submissions and also taken into note the direction issued by this Court earlier in the above said judgment.

In view of above position, there is no further necessity to continue with this contempt petition as no further deliberate violation from the side of State respondents is noticed. When the State respondents are also admitting that petitioners are being treated as technician, even if thereafter any grievance of the petitioners persists, they will have the liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

The contempt proceeding is closed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.