Sri Manindra Reang & Another vs The State Of Tripura And 2 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 218 Tri

                   HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA
                          WP(C) 606/2022
Sri Manindra Reang & another                                           .....Petitioners
                              Versus
The State of Tripura and 2 ors.                                       .....Respondents

For Petitioner(s)             :       Ms. N. Ghosh, Advocate
For Respondent(s)             :       Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
                    Order
16/03/2023

Heard Ms. N. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Additional GA appearing for the respondents.

By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to regularize the service of the Petitioners retrospectively i.e. from the date of their engagement in their service on ad-hoc basis instead of 30.07.2004 (i.e., the date of their regularization);

(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to designate the Petitioners as Junior Engineer, Gr.I, in the corresponding pay scale, on completion of 4 years of service in the post of Jr. Engineer, Gr.II, w.e.f. 26.03.1996 to 25.03.1996 respectively;

(iii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to grant to the petitioners the financial up-gradation in the scale ofRs. 2000-4410/-, on completion of 4 years of service, & in corresponding scale to (Rs. 7450-13000/-) as per the 15th Amendment to the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, ACP-2, on completion of total 17 years of service, as per Rule 10 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, and MACP-3, on completion of total 25 years of service, as per Rule 12 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017, in favour of the petitioners w.e.f. the date of their engagement in their service on ad-hoc basis;

(iv) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to treat the past services rendered by the Petitioners on ad-hoc basis, for the purpose of granting the pension & retirement benefits to the Petitioner;

(v) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby Order dated 17.10.2016, issued by the Director of Agriculture, Dept. of Agriculture, Govt. of Tripura, whereby the ACP-I of the Petitioner no. 1 herein has been cancelled;

(vi) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby quashing and cancelling the Memorandum dated 22.11.2016, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura, Dept. of Agriculture;

(vii) Make the rules absolute;

(viii) Call for records;

(ix) Pass any further Order/Orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered fit and proper".

It is the contention of the petitioners that, they were first appointed on ad-hoc basis in the post of Junior Engineer. Thereafter, their services were regularized in the post of Junior Engineer with regular pay-scale on 30.07.2004.

In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have firstly prayed for counting the period of their services as Junior Engineer on ad-hoc basis till the period of their regularization. This point is covered by a judgment of this court rendered in W.P(C) 191 of 2018 [Sri Dhananjoy Jamatia vs. The State of Tripura and another] where this court had directed the State- respondents to count the period of service who had served on ad-hoc basis.

Accordingly, the matter is settled. As such, I direct the respondents- State to count the period of service the petitioners had served the respondents on ad-hoc basis. It is made clear that such counting of service on ad-hoc basis shall follow the fixation of the pay scale of the petitioners on notional basis for the purpose of pensionary benefits and other allowances, but, no arrears of pay for the said ad-hoc period.

Next prayer of the petitioners is to grant them ACP. ACP is applicable under Rule 10 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 which prescribes granting of ACP for direct recruitment. So, this prayer of the petitioners will be considered by the respondents in accordance with the relevant Rules i.e. ROP Rules, 2009.

Thirdly, it is the contention of petitioners that they should be re- designated as Junior Engineer, Grade-I, in the corresponding pay-scale on completion of 4 years of service in the post of Jr. Engineer, Grade-II.

Be that as it may, I direct the petitioners to submit representation to the concerned authority to re-designate them as Junior Engineer, Gr. II within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Thereafter, the concerned authority of the respondents-State shall dispose of the representations of the petitioners in accordance with Rules within a period of next two months from the date of receipt of their representations.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in terms of above directions.

JUDGE

Saikat