Tripura High Court
Smt. Arati Bala Barua vs The State Of Tripura on 4 February, 2021
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WP(C) No.1350 of 2019
Smt. Arati Bala Barua, W/o. Lt. Badal Bikash Barua, resident of Village-
Rabindranagar, P.O & P.S- Kanchanpur, North Tripura.
......Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, (to be represented by the Principal Secretary,
Department of School Education, Government of Tripura), New Secretariat
Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799006.
2. The Director of School Education, Government of Tripura, Old
Secretariat Complex, Akhura Road, Agartala, P.S- West Agartala, P.O.
Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-799001.
3. The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, New
Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital
Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799006.
4. The Inspector of School, Kanchanpur, North Tripura, Pin-799270.
......Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate,
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
ORDER
04/02/2021
Petitioner has prayed for counting half of her past service
rendered as a DRW for the purpose of pensionable service.
[2] Brief facts are as under :
The petitioner was engaged in the establishment of Inspector
of School, Kanchanpur Sub-Division, with effect from 15.04.1988.
According to the petitioner, she was engaged as a DRW and with prior
concurrence of the Finance Department. Both these aspects the respondents
dispute. We would however refer to these issues later.
[3] The petitioner had approached the High Court previously by
filing WP(C) No.865 of 2016 seeking her regularization in terms of the
Government of Tripura policy framed under memorandum dated
01.09.2008. The High Court disposed of this petition with following
observations and directions.
"10. In the affidavit, the respondents have not categorically stated what
status of the petitioner was having. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has
been stated by the respondents as follows:
"It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged as Care Taker
verbally."
It is an affirmation. Nowhere the respondents have stated that the
petitioner was a Part-time Worker and for that reason, she could not
come within the ambit of the said memorandum dated 01.09.2008. By
the memorandum dated 01.09.2008, it has been categorically provided
that the persons holding the status of the DRW/Casual/Contingent
Workers who were engaged on full time basis in different Departments
with or without concurrence of Finance Department and had completed
10(ten) years of service as on 31.03.2008 other than Permanent
Labourers, Part-time workers, Anganwadi workers and Helpers, Home
Guards, Teachers and Workers engaged under SSA and other
Schemes/programmes, may be considered for regularization. The
petitioner does not come within the categories which are excluded from
the purview of the memorandum dated 01.09.2008. Thus, the petitioner
was eligible for regularisation, but the respondents have omitted to
regularize her in terms of the said memorandum dated 01.09.2008.
11. Having considered all these aspects, the respondents are directed to
consider regularization of the petitioner‟s service in terms of the
memorandum dated 01.09.2008 [Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition] and
release all financial benefits as expeditiously as possible, but by any
rate not later than 6(six) months from the day when the petitioner shall
submit a copy of this order."
[4] The Government did not challenge the said judgment of the
learned Single Judge. Pursuant to the judgment, the Director of Secondary
Education, Tripura issued a memorandum dated 03.11.2017 regularizing
the service of the petitioner in Group D post in the scale of pay of Rs.4530-
13000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1200/- from 01.07.2008 till 31.08.2012 i.e.
the date when she crossed the age of superannuation.
[5] Her length of regular Government service was not sufficient to
earn pension. Her case however was that the Government of Tripura had
framed a policy under which upon regularization, a contingent worker or a
DRW would get weightage of half the past service for the purpose of
pension. In this respect, my attention has been drawn by the counsel for the
petitioner on a memorandum dated 16.08.1978 when first time the policy
was declared. This memorandum was followed by subsequent Government
memorandum latest one being one dated 25.02.2010. Relevant portion of
which reads as under :
" After careful consideration of the matter, the Governor has been
pleased to decide that the benefit of counting of half of the period of
continuous service rendered by the DRWs/Contingent Workers/Monthly
Rated Workers/Casual Workers who were engaged on full time basis ad
paid from „Wages‟ would be counted towards pension following their
regularization with the approval of the Finance Department. The
benefit provided under this circular will not have any relevance in
declaration of employees as quasi permanent/permanent/counting of
seniority/ counting of period for the purpose of determining eligibility
for extending benefit of CAS/ACP.
[6] When the respondents refused to grant the said benefit of 50%
of the past service for the purpose of pension, the petitioner filed the
present petition. In response to notice issued the respondents have appeared
and filed the reply in which primarily the stand taken is that the petitioner
was not engaged as a DRW under the Director of School Education with
the prior concurrence of the Finance Department. This is the main ground
on which the prayer of the petitioner is opposed by the respondents.
[7] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused documents on record I find that the Government stand is not
sustainable. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier and sought the
benefit of regularization in terms of the scheme of the Government. This
scheme itself envisaged that after the promulgation of the scheme and upon
completion of 10 years of service in contingent worker or DRW category
the employee would be eligible for consideration for regularization
provided her initial engagement was with the concurrence of the Finance
Department. Thus when the High Court directed the department to consider
the case of the petitioner and pursuant to which the petitioner was
regularized by the Government, it stood established that the petitioner
fulfilled the requirements of the regularization scheme of the Government.
Once this stage is crossed, it is not open for the Government to now reopen
the old issues and question the very manner in which the petitioner was
initially engaged in the year 1988. This would be going behind the
judgment of this Court in earlier round of litigation as well as questioning
the very regularization order that the Government has passed in favour of
the petitioner pursuant to the said judgment.
[8] It is not the case of the respondents that to a person who is
regularized in service pursuant to the said memorandum dated 01.09.1988,
the Government policy decision of considering 50% of the past service for
pensionary benefits is not applicable.
[9] Under the circumstances, the respondents shall give weightage
of half of the past service of the petitioner as DRW for the purpose of
pensionary benefits in terms of the Government policy. Her pension shall
be worked out on such basis and arrears shall be released within 3(three)
months from today. If so done, there shall be no burden of paying interest
thereof. However, in case of any period beyond 3(three) months consumed
by the Government, the arrears shall carry simple interest @ 7% per annum
from the completion of the said period till actual payment.
[10] Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if
any also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Dipesh
