Tripura High Court
Smt. Elizabeth Rupini vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 10 September, 2021
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WP(C) No. 618 of 2021
Smt. Elizabeth Rupini,
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Tripura and Others
...Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Ms. R. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Mr. P. Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
10/09/2021
Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R.
Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.
Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents-State.
By way of filing this instant writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for counting her past service. The petitioner was first appointed as
Graduate Teacher under the State-respondents. She was given the benefit of
regular pay-scale, and thereafter, she had completed her B.Ed.
The brief facts are that, for filling up of 4716 vacant posts of
Graduate Teacher under the Education Department (School Education),
Government of Tripura, the respondents had issued an advertisement on
10.05.2010. Pursuant to that advertisement, the petitioner submitted her
requisite application with necessary documents. Subsequently, the petitioner
was duly selected for the said post under the respondent No.4, on fixed pay
basis along with other admissible financial benefits. But, challenging the
legality of the said memorandum dated 30.08.2003 laying down the general
employment policy of the Government, and the appointment made thereof, a
bunch of writ petition was filed before this Court, and by a common judgment
and order dated 16.11.2011, passed in WP(C) No. 213 of 2010, the writ
petitions were disposed of with a direction to the State-respondents for
undertaking thorough scrutiny and examination by constituted committee
comprised of responsible officials. Challenging the said judgment and order
dated 16.11.2011, the State-respondents had preferred intra court appeals 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 issuing a
memorandum accorded regular pay scales to various graduate, post graduate
teachers who had 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
petitioner had applied for the said posts and she was selected, and subsequently
appointed as graduate teacher afresh during the continuation of her previous
appointment. On her appointment, she claimed for counting her past services
alongwith other admissible financial benefits by way of filing representations
to the State-respondents, but, she did not receive any positive response, which
prompted the petitioner 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
petitioner 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 petitioner to submit
representation to the State-respondents claiming the reliefs sought for in the
writ petition.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner has 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 transmit the records,
appertaining to this writ petition, lying with them, for rendering
substantive and conscionable justice to the petitioner;
(ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to
show cause as to why a Writ Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof,
shall not be issued, for mandating/directing to regularize the service of
the petitioner, from the date of completion of 5 years of service in the
post of Graduate Teacher, appointed on 2010, under the Education
Department, Government of Tripura, fix her pay & allowances in the
regular Pay Scale, and thereupon, release all the consequential benefits,
as well as the arrears of salary and allowances in favour of the
petitioner;
(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. above;
(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 petitioner falls for
consideration under Category-II and her past services have to be counted.
In the line of decision and directions of this court in the case of
Sangita Reang (supra), the present petitioner deserves to be categorized as
'Category-II', and she is entitled to receive full benefit of the past service for
the purpose of pension, pay fixation and all other purposes except for seniority.
Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit representation to
the State-respondents claiming the reliefs sought for in the writ petition
alongwith a copy of the judgment passed in Sangita Reang (supra). On receipt
of the said representation, the State-respondents shall dispose of the same re-
fixing her pay 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
A. Ghosh
