Tripura High Court
Sri Sajal Saha vs The State Of Tripura And 5 Others on 25 March, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA 94 of 2021
Sri Sajal Saha
----Appellant(s)
Vs
The State of Tripura and 5 Others
----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abir Baran, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Order
25.03.2021
Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Abir Baran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
[2] This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated
08.01.2021 delivered in WP(C) 586 of 2020. The petitioner has
approached this court by filing the writ petition for directing the
respondents to quash and set aside the memorandum dated 31.03.2020
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner's services was
finally terminated by the respondents. On the basis of the principal relief,
additional reliefs as sought are for reinstating the petitioner in service in
the same post i.e. Under Graduate Teacher under the Directorate of
School Education, Government of Tripura and to regularize his services
on completion of five years i.e. w.e.f. 03.03.2019. The petitioner has
stated that offer of appointment that was issued vide memorandum
dated 26.02.2014 was issued on compassionate ground. From a reading
of the memorandum dated 26.02.2014, it surfaces that the petitioner
was appointed as Under Graduate Teacher on fixed monthly pay of
Rs.5055/-
[3] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
has submitted that the petitioner's service has been terminated by the
memorandum dated 31.03.2020 w.e.f 31.03.2020 afternoon. The text of
this memorandum having considered material is reproduced hereunder:
No. F.1(1-46) SE/E/(NG)/2017(Vol-II)48
Government of Tripura
Education (School) Department
Estt.(NG) Section
Directorate of Secondary Education.
Dated, Agartala, the 31st March, 2020
MEMO
The services of Post Graduate Teachers and
Graduate Teachers appointed in 2010 and under-Graduate
Teachers appointed in 2014 had come to an end on 31st
December, 2017 (afternoon) vide Memo No.F.1(1-
46)SE/E(NG)/2017(Vol-II) dated 23.12.2017 as per order
of the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in Case No.WP(C)
51/2014 of Tanmoy Nath and others which was affirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.03.2017 in
SLP(C) 18993 19019/2014.
Subsequently as per request of the State
Government the Hon'bel Supreme Court of India had
permitted these teachers to continue on ad hoc basis for a
period of 6 (six) months w.e.f. 01.01.2018 vide order dated
14.12.2017 and on further request of the State
Government, extension of ad hoc services of these teachers
were allowed for a further period up to academic session
2019-20 i.e. Up to 31st March, 2020 vide order dated
01.11.2018.
In view of the above, the ad hoc services of above
mentioned teachers are hereby terminated w.e.f.
31.03.2020 (afternoon)
Sd. Illegible
31.3.20
Addl. Secretary to the
Government of Tripura.
[4] The respondents by filing their reply have categorically
stated that the petitioner was never appointed on compassionate
ground. That apart, they have asserted in Para 4 of their reply that as
the petitioner was not dependent to the affected deceased employee and
was over-aged for government employment on the date of death of his
brother Sanjoy Kumar Saha, Ex-GT, his prayer for Government service
under die-in-harness could not be entertained as the petitioner was
adjudged not eligible for Government Service under die-in-harness
Scheme as per the Revised Employment Policy, 2012 issued on
26.05.2012.
[5] The fact that petitioner's brother namely, Sanjoy Kumar
Saha died in a road accident is not disputed by the respondents. The
respondents have further stated that the petitioner has applied for the
post of Under Graduate Teacher and filed his job form. Accordingly, he
was called for interview by the memorandum dated 05.11.2009. The
interview board recommended his name for appointment. Though
initially, the petitioner was in the waiting list in the category UR (Need).
The petitioner had accepted that offer and joined the service. But after
selection of the petitioner along with other recruitees, their selection was
challenged by some aggrieved persons in the Gauhati High Court on the
ground of discrimination and violation of the fairnessness in the
government employment. All the selections were interfered with and set
aside by the judgment in Tanmoy Nath and others vs. State of Tripura
and other reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731. The said judgment was
challenged in the apex court by the state in filing Special Leave Petition
(Civil) for appeal. On hearing, the apex court affirmed the judgment of
this court cancelling the appointment, however, giving some leeway for
which the petitioner could serve till 31.03.2020. But, finally the order of
termination has been substantially effected from 31.03.2020 afternoon.
[6] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has quite robustly submitted
that since the petitioner's service was on compassionate appointment,
his service cannot be terminated by operation of the said judgment of
this court and hence, the respondents be directed to reinstate him in the
service and regularize him on completion of five years of service.
[7] Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the
respondents has submitted that the respondents have categorically
stated that the petitioner was appointed following the New Employment
Policy, 2003. Thus, the petitioner's employment was under challenge by
the aggrieved petitioners including Tanmoy Nath as stated and as such
the petitioner's plea that he was appointed on compassionate ground is
unsustainable inasmuch as the respondents have categorically stated
that the petitioner was never appointed on compassionate ground and
that categorical statement has never been confronted by the petitioner.
Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has finally urged this court
to call for the records for fresh scrutiny but we do not find any necessity
for calling the records, even for directing the respondents to consider
that aspect of that matter afresh. We have examined the judgment of
the learned single judge in this regard and we do not find any infirmity.
In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
There shall no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Dipak
