Tripura High Court
Sri Prasenjit Banik vs The State Of Tripura And Anr on 3 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 630 of 2022
Sri Prasenjit Banik
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura And Anr
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Pal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
ORDER
03.08.2023
Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
as well as Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the state-
respondents.
This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India filed by the petitioner seeking 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 passed, to call for the records lying with the respondents and
thereafter, quashing/setting aside the impugned Memo dated
28.06.2021 bearing reference No.F.1(1-46)-SE/E/(NG)/2018(L-4);
(ii) Issue a 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, to revoke/rescind the impugned Memo
dated 28.06.2021 bearing reference No.F1(1-46)-SE/E(NG)/2018(L-4)
and further direct them to grant the benefit of pension to the
petitioner as per Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (as
adopted in the State of Tripura) and orders issued thereunder from
time to time, as has been extended to the appointees of STGPT-2017
as PGT(Music);
(iii) Call for records appertaining to this petition;
(iv) In the ad-interim or in/the interim an order directing the respondents
to release the accrued monthly salary of the petitioner, with effect
from 25.11.2020;
(v) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make a Rule absolute in terms
of i.ii. and iii above;
(vi) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding;
(vii) Any other relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and
proper.
It is the case of petitioner that the respondents invited online
applications for the selection test of Graduate Teacher (STGT) and Post
Graduate Teacher (STPGT) through an advertisement No.02/2017 dated
27.05.2017 in local newspapers. The petitioner submitted his application
for the selection test within the stipulated period of 28.05.2027 to
09.06.2017 for Post Graduate Teacher in music and was assigned Roll
No.622611701320. As per the schedule mentioned in the notification for
certificate verification of STPGT 2017, on 30.08.2017, the petitioner
submitted all the mark sheets/certificates of academic and professional
qualifications including other relevant certificates/documents to the office
of the respondent as specified in the notification. The respondents vide
notification No.F.2(1-18)GEN/TRBT/REC/2017/1558 dated 16.10.2017,
published the names of the selected candidates, wherein it was
mentioned that no selected eligible candidate is found in music. The
petitioner has presented a writ petition in the month of July, 2019 being
WP(C) 859 of 2019 challenging his exclusion from the select list and
seeking a direction upon the respondents to recruit him to the post of
Post Graduate Teacher in music under the respondents. The Hon'ble High
court of Tripura disposed of WP(C) 859 of 2019 on 06.03.2020. Pursuant
to the judgment of this court the respondent No.2 issued offer of
appointment to the petitioner on 23.07.2020. The petitioner
communicated letter of acceptance of offer alongwith objection to
condition No.VI on 03.08.2020. On considering of the letter of acceptance
and the objection submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 issued
posting order on 11.11.2020. As the petitioner was not being paid
monthly salary he submitted an application to the respondent No.2 on
25.11.2021 seeking clarification as to whether he is required to execute
the undertaking that his pension and other retirement benefits would be
guided by the Government and not by CCS(Pension) Rules as he was
selected in 2017 through STPGT 2017. The respondent No.2 on
28.06.2021 issued a memo whereby it was decided that the prayer of the
petitioner that he does not come under the purview of the New pension
Scheme cannot be acceded to. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has
approached this court for seeking relief.
Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted before this court that the present petition has been filed
challenging the decision of the State respondents that the petitioner
would not fall under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 as adopted in the
State of Tripura and formulated in line with the Contributory Pension
Scheme announced by the Government of India. It is further submitted
that the petitioner was selected in STPGT-2017 and all other recruits of
STPGT-2017 to the post of Post Graduate Teacher were given the benefit
of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as adopted in the State of Tripura and the
petitioner cannot be an exception because the delay caused in
recommending the petitioner's name was attributable to the wrong
decision taken by the respondents and for the same the petitioner cannot
be made liable.
In course of his submission, Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel for
the petitioner has also submitted that the respondents are misinterpreting
the order dated 06.03.2020 passed in WP(C) 859 of 2019 causing trouble
for the petitioner herein and prays for clarification of the same.
Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for state-
respondents has submitted before this court that as per the recruitment
rules for the post of Post Graduate Teacher in Music, a candidate should
have academic qualification of Master Degree in Music, whereas the
petitioner possessed Master of Arts in Dance. So the matter of
equivalency had arisen. Teacher's Recruitment Board, Tripura referred the
matter to the Equivalence Committee to determine equivalency of Master
of Arts in Dance to Master of Arts in Music. The Chairman of the
Equivalence Committee vide letter No.F.13(1)/GOT/EC?2016/6 dated
15.09.2017 communicated the decision of the Equivalence Committee
stating that Master of Arts in Dance is not equivalent to Master of Arts in
Music. Pursuant to the decision of the Equivalence Committee, the
petitioner did not possess the required minimum qualification for
recruitment to the post of PGT (Music) and the name of the petitioner was
not recommended by the TRBT for recruitment to the post of PGT (Music).
In view of the above submission and considering the all
aspects of the matter, this court is of the view that the petitioner has
made out his case in establishing that the impugned memo dated
28.06.2021 bearing reference No.F1(1-46)-SE/E(NG)/2018(L-4) is an
unreasoned one and without application of mind. Accordingly, the memo
dated 28.06.2021 is set aside. This court has no hesitation to hold that
the interpretation given by the respondent No.2 in the impugned memo
interpreting the order dated 06.03.2020 delivered in WP(C) 859 of 2019
by this court, is wrongly interpreted. While referring to the proceeding
dated 08.06.2022, the information provided under the RTI Act clearly
indicates that 12 posts were assigned for STPGT, 2017. Therefore, it can
be said that since sufficient vacancies are available as on the date of
consideration, the case of the petitioner, as per the judgment passed in
WP(C)859 of 2019, needs to be considered. Furthermore, it also goes
without saying that the petitioner is entitled to the pension under the old
scheme, i.e. CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 as adopted in the State of Tripura.
Accordingly, the order dated 06.03.2020 passed in
WP(C)859 of 2019 stands clarified for the benefit of the respondents
though there is no ambiguity in the order.
With the above observation and direction, this present writ
petition stands allowed and disposed of. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands
vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK Digitally signed by
DIPAK DAS
DAS Date: 2023.08.09
15:41:37 +05'30'
