Tripura High Court
The Union Of India vs Sumanta Chakrabarti on 2 August, 2023
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA NO.200 OF 2021
1. The Union of India,
represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource and
Development, Presently; Ministry of Education, Government of
India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. National Institute of Technology Agartala,
represented by its Registrar, P.O. & P.S. Jirania, District : West
Tripura
3. The Director,
National Institute of Technology, Agartala, P.O. & P.S. Jirania,
District : West Tripura
4. The Chief Vigilance Officer,
National Institute of Technology, Agartala, P.O. & P.S. Jirania,
District : West Tripura
5. The Board of Governors,
represented by its Chairperson, National Institute of
Technology, Agartala, P.O. & P.S. Jirania, District : West Tripura
......... Appellant-Respondent(s)
Vs.
Sumanta Chakrabarti,
son of Sri Hiranmay Chakrabarti, resident of Ramkrishna
Mission Road, Town Bardowali, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
......... Respondent-Petitioner(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate.
Mr. S. Dey, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 02.08.2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
T. Amarnath Goud(J)
This present writ appeal has been filed under Chapter
V-A of the High Court Rules against the Judgment and Order dated
31.05.2021 and order of Correction dated 21.06.2021 passed in
WP(C) No.1298 of 2017 by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court.
2. The respondent-petitioner herein was appointed as
Deputy Registrar(Administration) of the National Institute of
Technology, Agartala (in short' NITA') vide letter dated 21.07.2011
and subsequently, he had joined vide joining letter dated
12.08.2011. The appellant-respondent No.2 herein sent a letter
dated 11.03.2016 to the petitioner stating that as per the
instruction of appellant-respondent No.1, the Director of NITA has
decided to investigate certain allegations against the respondent-
petitioner herein through appellant-respondent No.4 herein, those
allegations are as follows:-
"(a) The petitioner does not have the minimum
qualification for the post of Deputy Registrar as he did not have the
Masters Degree in any discipline but the petitioner was only having
Bachelors Degree in Engineering.
(b) The petitioners Ph.D. Degree is not genuine and
the thesis submitted by the petitioner in BITS Pilani is a case of
plagiarism.
(c) the petitioner had falsely and with malicious
intention enrolled his name under the old pension scheme, even
though, the employees who are recruited after 2004 will not be
entitled for old pension scheme Further by way of amendment
petitioner has challenged the decision of Board of Governor of NITA
taken in item No.42.5, viz 42.5.1, 42.5.2, 42.5.3 in its 42ND
meeting held on 27.12.2017, Whereunder Item No.42.5.1 it wa
decided that the Ph.D qualification of the petitioner shall not be
upgraded in his service book and under Item No.42.5.2. it was
decided that the appellant cannot get the pay upgradation on
completion of 5 years of service as per 6th CPC and under item
No.42.5.3., it was decided that the petitioner will not be allowed to
get GPF and pensionary benefit."
3. The petitioner-respondent herein approached the
Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court by filing the writ petition being
WP(C) No.1298 of 2017, inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari for
setting aside/quashing the entire proceeding initiated by
respondent No.2 therein by letter dated 11.03.2016.
4. The learned Single Judge vide its Judgment dated
31.05.2021 and order of correction dated 21.06.2021 allowed the
impugned writ petition.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment as
mentioned herein, the respondents as appellants has filed this
present appeal seeking to set aside the Judgment and Order dated
31.05.2021 and order of correction dated 21.06.2021 passed in
WP(C) No.1298 of 2017 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this
Court.
6. Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI
appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent.
7. Mr. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing for the
appellants submits that in the present case, the petitioner had
been appointed in the NIT on 12.08.2011. Therefore, as per clause
29 of NIT statue, since the petitioner had been appointed after
01.01.2004 as provided in clause 29 of NIT statute, the petitioner
is not entitled to get the GPF as per Central Civil Pension Rules and
the petitioner will be guided by New Pension Scheme. Admittedly,
as stated in the writ petition, the petitioner had bachelor degree in
Civil Engineering in 1st class from Tripura University. Therefore, the
petitioner admittedly does not have any Master Degree at the time
of appointment as Deputy Registrar in the NIT. It is provided in the
Notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resource &
Development, Department of Higher Education dated 31.12.2008
is that for minimum qualification for direct recruitment to Deputy
Registrar and equivalent post shall be Master Degree with at least
55% marks or equivalent grade of 'B' in the UGC. Further, the
petitioner-respondent did not obtain any permission from the NIT
prior to the completion of Ph.D. Therefore, his Ph.D. cannot be
upgraded.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent highlighted before this Court the
memorandum No.NITA.2(335-Estt)/2011/8516-19 dated
04.12.2012 and memorandum No.F.NITA.2(335-Estt)2011/4204-
05 dated July, 23rd 2013 issued by the Director, NITA. Learned
counsel submitted that in terms of the aforementioned
memorandums, it is evident that after the entry of the respondent
in the NITA, he was given the benefit of his past service and he
was allowed to convert his EPF to GPF, and all this while appellants
accepted his GPF contribution.
9. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.
10. Admittedly, memorandum No.NITA.2(335-
Estt)/2011/8516-19 dated 04.12.2012 and memorandum
No.F.NITA.2(335-Estt)2011/4204-05 dated July, 23rd 2013 issued
by the Director, NITA clearly indicates that the past service of the
respondent was taken into consideration and benefits were
extended to the respondent herein basing on the service record
which would be made available.
In the memorandum dated 23rd July issued by the
Director(I/C) NITA it is mentioned that " Sumanta Chakraborty,
Deputy Registrar (Administration) NIT Agartala was declared
absorbed and confirmed in past of Deputy Registrar(Admin) in NIT
Agartala from date of joining in NIT Agartala w.e.f. 12.08.2011
protecting his pay and counting his earlier service........". Further in
the same memorandum it is stated that "....... he is entitled to have
the benefits counting his past services w.e.f. 16/03/1996 to
11/8/2011 for all purpose of leave and pensionary benefits
including gratuity etc....". So, subsequent to his earlier
appointment in 2011, he was absorbed into NITA as Deputy
Registrar (Administration) and the benefits have been extended.
Accordingly to their own memorandum, the respondent herein is
entitled to pension under the Old pension scheme to which he has
already given his option and he is entitled to the same.
11. Per contra the appellants submit before this
Court that since the petitioner has been appointed in NITA on
12.08.2011, the new pension schemes need to be made
applicable. This Court is not inclined to appreciate the same, since
the said aforementioned memorandums which are issued by the
Director of NITA himself needs to be taken into consideration. In
the event if the appellant-institution feels that the Director has
committed an error, it is for them to take appropriate steps against
the Director, if so desired, for issuing such proceedings. But at this
juncture, it is not proper for this Court to decide the proceedings
issued by the said Director are on per with the Rules.
12. With the above observation the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2021 and order of correction
dated 21.06.2021 passed in WP(C) No.1298 of 2017 is upheld and
this present appeal stands dismissed. As a sequel, stay if any
stands vacated. Pending application(s) if any also stands closed.
JUDGE JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2023.08.04
SINGHA 13:29:41 +05'30'
