Smt. Anindita Bhattacharjee & 3 ... vs The State Of Tripura And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 836 Tri

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                        WP(C) 48/2021

Smt. Anindita Bhattacharjee & 3 others                   ----Petitioner(s)
                     Versus
The State of Tripura and others                        ----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)        :      Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate
                                Ms. R. Chakraborty, Advocate
For Respondent(s)        :      Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA
                                Mr. P. Saha, Advocate

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
                   Order
03/09/2021

Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel for the respondents. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for counting their past service. The petitioners were first appointed as Assistant Teachers under the State-respondents. They were given the benefit of regular pay-scale, and thereafter, they have completed their B.Ed. The brief facts, are that, for filling up of 1450 vacant posts of Assistant Teacher (Science Graduate), the respondents had issued an advertisement on 25.08.2010. Pursuant to that advertisement, the petitioners submitted their requisite applications with necessary documents. Subsequently, the petitioners were duly selected for the said post under the respondent no. 4 on fixed pay basis alongwith other admissible financial benefits. But, challenging the legality of the said memorandum dated 30.08.2003, and the appointments made thereof, a bunch of writ petitions were filed before this Court, and by a common judgment and order dated 16.11.2011 passed in WP(C) 213 of 2010, the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the State-respondents for thorough scrutiny and examination by constituting a committee of responsible officials. Challenging the said judgment and order dated 16.11.2011, the State-respondents had preferred appeals before this Court and this Court by its common judgment and order dated 07.05.2014 disposed of the writ appeals holding that the memorandum dated 30.08.2003 suffers from illegalities and arbitrariness and also interfered with the selection process made in the year 2010. Thereafter, the Director of School Education by memorandum accorded regular pay scales to various graduate, post graduate teachers who have completed 5 years of service, subject to final decision of the Special Leave petition preferred by the State-respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Special Leave petition preferred by the State-respondents was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment and order dated 23.03.2017 affirming the conclusion and directions, recorded by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the State- respondents had issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of Graduate teachers and post-graduate teachers in conformity with the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 07.05.2015. Pursuant to that advertisement, the petitioners had applied for the said posts and they were selected, and subsequently appointed. On their appointment, they claimed for counting their past services alongwith other admissible financial benefits by way of filing representations to the State-respondents, but, they did not receive any positive response, which prompted the petitioners to approach this Court.

On similar subject matter, some of the similarly situated teachers had filed writ petition before this Court, being numbered as WP(C) 295 of 2019, titled as Smt. Sangita Reang and others versus The State of Tripura and others. Learned Government Advocate has admitted that the claim of the petitioners of the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the case of Sangita Reang (supra). Learned Government Advocate has submitted that a direction may be passed upon the petitioners to submit representation to the State-respondents claiming the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

In the present writ petition, the petitioners, had prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for directing them, to transit the records, appertaining to this writ petition, lying with them, for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the petitioners;

(ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for mandating/directing them, to regularize the service of the petitioners, from the date of completion of 5 years of service in the post of Assistant Teacher (Science Graduate), appointed in the year 2012, under the Education Department, thereupon, release all the consequential benefits, as well as the arrears of salary and allowances in favour of the petitioners;

(iii) Call for the records appertaining to this petition;

(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute in terms of i. ii. & iii.;

(v) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper.

While disposing of the similar writ petitions, this Court had taken into consideration the case of Tanmoy Nath and others vs. State of Tripura and others, reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731, wherein in paragraph 125, it was held as under:

"125. We would also like to make it clear that other than the benefits indicated by us above there can be no reservation/preference on the basis of age. There shall be no preference to dependent government servants or retired government employee or retrenched employees etc. There can be no reservation for linguistic or religious minorities or on area wise basis. It is further made clear that if the persons who are selected in the previous selection are again selected then the service rendered by them earlier shall be counted for the purpose of seniority, pension and all other purposes."

Further, in the case of Sangita Reang (supra), this Court had observed that by virtue of the judgment of this court in case of Tanmoy Nath (supra) and the clarification made in paragraph 125, thereof upon their regular selection in the fresh selection process, their past service had to be protected which benefit the Government has not granted. The petitioners' argument that their previous service rendered from the year 2010 onwards cannot be wiped out, particularly, in view of the clarification contained in paragraph-125 of the judgment of this Court in case of Tanmoy Nath (supra). They point out that all petitioners were brought in regular scales of pay in the year 2015 upon completion of 5 years of service in fixed salary. They now cannot be placed in fixed salary all over again. This court has also classified the writ petitions in three broad categories, namely, Category-I, Category-II and Category-III. According to this court, Category-I would be those cases wherein teachers, who were previously selected and appointed on a particular post, which selection and appointment were set aside by this court in Tanmoy Nath (supra) are now through fresh selection process selected and appointed on the same post. As I have stated earlier that the case of the petitoners falls for consideration under Category-I and their past services have to be counted. Under similar circumstances, this court in the case of Sangita Reang (supra), at paragraph 30 held that the petitioners should be categorized as 'Category-I', and they shall receive full benefit of the past service for the purpose of seniority, pension and all other purposes.

Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to submit representation to the State-respondents claiming the reliefs sought for in the writ petition alongwith a copy of this judgment passed in Sangita Reang (supra). On receipt of the said representation, the State-respondents shall dispose of the same within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment, in the light of the observations, made here-in-above, following the judgment of Sangita Reang (supra).

With the aforesaid order, the instant writ petition stands disposed. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Saikat