Mr. D.C. Roy vs Mr. K. De
2021 Latest Caselaw 507 Tri

                             HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                   AGARTALA
                                  WP(C)No.790 of 2020
     For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. D.C. Roy, Adv.
     For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

Order 13/04/2021

Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well

as Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner was initially

appointed as the Guard man in Tripura Border Wings Home Guard Battalion on

14.05.1986 and he was discharged from the Border Wings Home Guard Battalion on

25.10.1987. The petitioner had the chest No.864350 B.O.No.1758. The petitioner

has produced the enrolment certificate in the Border Wings Home Guard Battalion

issued by the Commandant. It has been asserted by the petitioner that after he was

discharged from the Home Guard Battalion, the petitioner had joined the Tripura

Police Organization as the constable on 27.10.1987 and retired from service on

31.10.2018. The petitioner was not given the benefit of his past service in the

Border Wing Home Battalion. In the judgment dated 22.07.1988 delivered in Civil

Rule No.119 of 1981 the Guahati High Court had observed as follows :

"To sum up we held that the petitioner and all other similarly situated persons appointed as members of the Border Wing Home Guards in the scale of pay mentioned in their appointment letters along with allowances as applicable to the members of equivalent rank of State Police Organization shall be entitled to get the said pay scale and other allowances as or appointment letter including annual increments."

The appeal carried out against the said judgment did not bring any

positive result for the state-respondents and the same was dismissed.

3. Thereafter, several writ petitions were filed for absorption from the

Border Wings Home Guard Battalion to Tripura Police Organization. In the order

dated 20.01.2017 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition], the Director General of Police,

Tripura observed having regard to the judgment and order dated 05.04.2016

delivered in WP(C)No.13 of 2015 etc. that the petitioners in those writ petitions are

entitled to notional pay fixation as the member of the erstwhile Border Wings Home

Guards Battalion from the date of their enrolment in the Border Wings Home Guard

Battalion up to 05.04.2016, the day of appointment as the constable and cash

benefits with effect from 06.04.2016.

The petitioner in the present writ petition prays for the similar benefit.

4. The respondents by filing their reply did not dispute any factual aspects

but they have stated that since the petitioner did not give any representation to the

appropriate authority for consideration and he was not a party to the earlier writ

petitions, the respondents did not give any relief to him.

5. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties and scrutinized the records as produced, this court is of the view that the

petitioner shall submit a representation seeking the benefit of his past service in the

manner as provided by the said notification/order dated 20.01.2017 and to get the

benefit of notional pay fixation from the date of the initial engagement as the Guard

man in the Tripura Border Wing Home Guards Battalion on 14.05.1986 till

26.10.1986 as the petitioner was appointed in Tripura Police Organization on

27.10.1987 as the constable. The petitioner shall furnish the records of his

appointment as the Guardman in Tripura Border Wing Home Guards Battalion, his

letter of appointment in the police organization on 27.10.1987, the service records in

Tripura Border Wing Home Guards Battalion etc. If the service record of the Tripura

Bordering Home guards Battalion cannot be produced by the petitioner, the office of

the Director General of Police shall call for the said records for verification, if

required. After the representation is filed to the Director General of Police through

proper channel, the Director General of Police shall consider the said representation

and if it is found that the petitioner is similarly circumstanced to that of the

petitioner of WP(C)No.250 of 2016 [Sri Swapan Kumar Debnath versus The State of

Tripura and Others] then the similar order like the order dated 20.01.2017

[Annexure-4 to the writ petition] be passed in respect of the petitioner.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

It is made clear that such representation shall be filed within a period of

1(one) month from today and the Director General of Police, Tripura shall dispose of

the writ petition having due regard to the observation made hereinabove within a

further period of 6(six) weeks from the day of filing of the representation.

A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties.

JUDGE

Sabyasachi B