Tripura High Court

Smt. Tapasi Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 20 January, 2022

                                Page 1 of 5




                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                        WP(C) No.424 of 2021
Smt. Tapasi Debbarma
                                                      ......Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
The State of Tripura and others
                                                       ......Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate, Mr. T. Halam, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)      : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
                           _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
20/01/2022

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

The present writ petition has come to be filed by one Smt.

Tapasi Debbarma seeking for a direction to issue a Mandamus to the

respondents to count the service of the petitioner on fixed/consolidated

pay basis in the Government Department as qualifying service for the

purpose of pensionary benefits and gratuity thereof and be allowed

enhanced pension and gratuity as admissible. Admittedly, the petitioner

entered into service as School Mother by order dated 31.05.1990 under

Annexure-1 to the writ petition. She continued as such on consolidated

pay and the Government of Tripura in the Directorate of Social Welfare

and Social Education by notification dated 03.11.2007 under Annexure-2

regularized services of DRWs/Casual/Contingent workers and including

School Mothers with consolidated pay who had already completed 15

years of service as on 31.03.2006 as per Annexure-A to the said

notification and they were regularized relaxing their age and educational

qualification as Group-D with effect from 1st October, 2007. The

petitioner was due to superannuate on 30.04.2020 on attaining the age of

60 years but her service was further extended for a period of three months

i.e. till 31st July, 2020. Upon her superannuation, the petitioner was called

upon to provide all documents for the purpose of computing the pension

payable to the petitioner and the respondents under Annexure-5

determined that the period only from the date of regularization i.e.

01.10.2007 for the purpose of computation of pension. In other words, the

pensionary authorities determined that she was eligible for pension for 12

years and 10 months of service. The petitioner made necessary

representations praying for adding the period under which she had

worked under consolidated pay for the purpose of pensionary benefits and

other service benefits. While there was no response to the same, the

present writ petition came to be filed. In this respect, the petitioner also

placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

case of Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) alias Mamata Roy versus State

of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.77 of 2015 decided on 08.10.2015

wherein the petitioner therein i.e. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) had sought a

similar prayer for adding the period that she had worked as School

Mother on consolidated pay for the purpose of adding to her qualifying

service for pensionary benefits. The said judgment came to be allowed

with the following directions :

"11. It would also be pertinent to mention that the Central Government and the Government of Tripura have taken a decision that even half of the services rendered by an employee on daily wages shall be counted towards qualifying service. The person appointed on fixed pay basis is on a much better footing than a person appointed on daily wages and if half of the service rendered by a daily wages employee can be counted for determining his/her qualifying service, I see no reason why the full service rendered by a fixed pay employee should not be counted towards her qualifying service if this uninterrupted service is followed by regular service.

12. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) and it is directed that the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of her joining as School Mother on fixed pay basis pursuant to the letter of appointment dated 19- 07-1990 till her regularization shall be added to her regular service from 01-10-2007 till her superannuation on 03-11-2007 for calculating her pension and other retiral benefits. The State shall ensure that the pension is accordingly fixed and all retiral benefits be released in favour of the petitioner latest by 31st January, 2016 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner, i.e. 30-06-2013 till payment/deposit of this amount."

Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional Government

submitted that the petitioner was appointed under schematic appointment

in the year 1990 and was offered consolidated pay and the petitioner did

have qualifying service of more than 10 years to make her entitled for

pension. It is asserted by the learned counsel for the State that the

aforesaid judgment was of School Mother who after regularization did

not have qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Apart from the

above, it was contended by the learned counsel for the State that

effectively the petitioner while she was being paid consolidated pay was

in effect daily wages worker.

The aforesaid contentions raised by the State are recorded

merely to be rejected outright. In paragraph 11 of the judgment as cited

hereinabove, his contention that the petitioner was daily wages worker

was categorically rejected by the Division Bench and on instead the

Division Bench concluded that the petitioner therein (School Mother) was

being paid on fixed pay basis and consequently directions were issued

therein as noted hereinabove.

The other contention of the State counsel that the judgment

only covers those who did not have qualifying service is also not a fact

borne out from record. In fact, the petitioner has annexed at page 21 of

the writ petition the list of persons who have been extended the benefit of

the judgment referred hereinabove. The persons listed at Sl. Nos. 40, 41,

42 & 43 are quoted hereunder :

Sl.   Name held ones          Date       of   Date        of   Date of birth   Date       of   SC/ST/UR
No.   already given benefit   engagement      resignation                      retirement      status
                              as     School
                              Mother     on
                              fixed pay
40    Smt. Mihir Rani         17.11.1999      17.11.2009       05.02.1958      28.02.2018      ST
      Debbarma
41    Smt. Kanika Sangha      29.11.1999      29.11.2009       09.04.1958      30.04.2018      UR
      Banik
42    Smt. Subha Laxmi        15.11.1999      15.11.2009       18.06.1958      30.06.2018      ST
      Debbarma
43    Smt. Kajal Rani Das     18.11.1999      18.11.2009       12.03.1959      31.03.2019      SC

Clearly, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for

the State to the aforesaid effect holds no water since persons who did

have qualifying service of more than 10 years, her period of service on

consolidated pay or fixed pay was duly added for the purpose of

pensionary and other benefits.

In view of the binding judgment as noted hereinabove

rendered by the Division Bench, the present writ petition is allowed. The

respondents are directed to add the period of service rendered by the

petitioner as a School Mother on consolidated/fixed pay from the date of

her appointment i.e. 12.06.1990 for computing her pension and other

benefits that she would be entitled to. The State shall ensure that the

pension is accordingly fixed and the retiral benefits be released in favour