Smti. Sumitra Debbarma vs State Of Tripura
2024 Latest Caselaw 549 Tri

Tripura High Court

Smti. Sumitra Debbarma vs State Of Tripura on 4 April, 2024

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                Page 1 of 7




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                         WP(C) NO.631 OF 2023


Smti. Sumitra Debbarma,
Wife of late Kartik Kumar Debbarma,
Resident of village Bardhaman Thakur para,
P.O.- Radhamohanpur,P.S. Jirania

                                                ......Petitioner(s)

                               Versus


1. State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Tripura, Department of Home,
New Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. New Capital Complex,
District- West Tripura, Pin-799010.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
(Crime Branch), Old Secretariat Building Premises,
P.O.- Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura.

3. The Accountant General(A&E), Tripura,
Malancha Niwas, P.O.- Kunjaban, Agartala,
District- West Tripura, Pin-799006.
                                       .......Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. B. Paul, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI.

Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 04.04.2024

Whether fit for reporting : YES.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)

Heard Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned Sr. counsel assisted

by Mr. B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well

as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the State-

respondents and Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing

for the respondent No.3.

2. This present writ petition has been filed under Article 226

of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue RULE NISI;

ii) Issue RULE calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Certiorari shall not be issued quashing/cancelling/ setting aside the letter of acceptance for voluntary retirement and the order of struck off dated 24.06.2020, order dated 27.07.2020 and the impugned communication/ order dated 28.07.2023, issued by the Superintendent (Crime Branch), office of the IGP, Crime & Intelligence, respectively.

(Annexure-3. Annedxure-4 & Annexure-8, supra);

iii) Issue RULE calling upon the Respondents or each one of them as to why alternatively a writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued to the Respondents directing / mandating / commanding to treat the Petitioner to have been retired from the service on completion of her 20 (twenty) years qualifying service on and from 18.11.2020 by altering/ modifying the acceptance letter of voluntary retirement of the Petitioner dated 24.06.2020 (Annexure-3, supra):

iv) Issue RULE calling upon the Respondents or each one of them as to why any other appropriate writ / writs, Order/ Orders shall not be passed for giving complete and full relief to the petitioner.

v) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the State Respondents or each one of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus shall not be issued directing / commanding / mandating the State Respondents to extend the pension benefit of the Petitioner by modifying the letter of acceptance of voluntary retirement of the Petitioner treating her to have been retired voluntarily after completion of 20 (twenty) years of service of the petitioner.

AND

In case the Respondents show cause or not, upon hearing the sides, your Lordships may be pleased to make the Rule absolute in terms of the prayers i to vi;

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she joined the

service under the State Respondents on 20.12.2000 as a Group D

(Follower) under the Die-in-Harness scheme. In the year 2018, the

petitioner became seriously ill and applied for voluntary retirement

on 04.06.2020. But the petitioner had not completed her qualifying

service of 20 years, as required under Rule 48-A of the C.C.S

(Pension) Rules. Her prayer was accepted with effect from

31.07.2020 (forenoon) vide voluntary pension Notice dated

24.06.2020 and a struck-off order was issued on 27.07.2020 giving

effect to the said voluntary retirement from 31.07.2020. While

considering the pension proposal by the Accountant General,

Tripura, it was detected that the voluntary retirement of the

petitioner was wrongly accepted since the petitioner had not

completed the qualifying service of 20 years and had only

completed 19 years 7 months and 12 days of her service and,

therefore, the pension and other retiral benefit could not be

extended to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the state

respondents to redress her grievances on 25.04.2022, but, it was

also left uncared for. As such, the petitioner approached this Court

by filing W.P(C) No. 813 of 2022 which was disposed of by an order

dated 28.04.2023 directing the respondents to consider the prayer

within 2(two) months. However, the state respondents have

rejected the prayer of the petitioner vide order dated 28.07.2023

without assigning any reason how the premature prayer for

voluntary retirement was accepted and the petitioner was stuck off

from the role without following the prescription of Rule 48-A of the

CCS (Pension) rules 1972. Hence aggrieved thereby, the petitioner

has filed this present Writ petition seeking the above-mentioned

reliefs.

4. Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned Sr. counsel assisted by

Mr. B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the State-respondents have committed a mistake in law in

accepting the prayer of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner

dated 04.06.2020 since the petitioner had not completed the period

of qualifying service of 20 years as mandated under Rule 48-A of

CCS (Pension) Rules. For the wrong committed by the respondents

for illegally accepting the pre-mature application of the petitioner of

voluntary retirement in contravention of the provision of Rule 48-A

of the CCS(Pension Rules), his client cannot be made to suffer.

Further, the petitioner submitted prayer for voluntary retirement on

04.06.2020, and the same was accepted by respondent No.2 on

24.06.2020 i.e. only after 20 days of submitting such prayer for

voluntary retirement which is against the Rule. Stating thus,

learned Sr. counsel urged this Court to direct the respondents to

extend the pensionary benefit of the petitioner by treating her to

have been retired voluntarily after completion of 20(twenty) years

of service.

5. On the other hand, Mr. B. Majumder, learned

Deputy SGI appearing for the respondent-Accountant General

submits that in terms of Rule 48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, the

petitioner should have completed 20 years of qualifying service but

the petitioner has only completed only 19 years 7 months and 12

days of her service and as such, his client had informed the same to

the respondent No.2 on 27.07.2020. Since the petitioner had not

completed 20 years of qualifying years of service, the Rule does not

allow the Accountant General Tripura to disburse the pensionary

benefits to the petitioner herein.

6. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for

the State-respondents submits that the Department has sympathy

with the petitioner and as such, the pension proposal of the

petitioner herein was sent by the State-respondents.

7. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on

record.

8. For proper adjudication of the case in hand, let us

produce Rule 48-A of the CCS(Pension) Rules:-

"48-A. Retirement on completion of 20 years' qualifying service

(1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years' qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from ser Provided that this sub-

rule shall not apply to a Government servant,

including scientist or technical expert who is- (i) on assignments under the Indian Technical and Economic Co- operation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid programmes.

(ii) posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries/Departments,

(iii) on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government,

unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year.

(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the Appointing Authority:

(emphasis supplied)

9. Rule 48-A of the CCS(Pension) Rules, categorically

says that the employee 'may' apply for retirement before the

employer, and giving notice of not less than three months for such

is not mandatory, and thereafter, the employer can consider the

retirement. This only pertains to the employee and the employer

and in so far as releasing the pension is concerned, the entitlement

only comes into force once 20 years of service is completed by the

employee. The language of the Rule is clear and unambiguous in its

requirement for a minimum of 20 years of service for eligibility.

10. In the present case, it is seen from the record

which is not disputed by both sides, that the petitioner herein has

not completed 20 years of service, and as such she is not entitled to

any relief in this regard.

11. In terms of the above discussion and findings, this

present writ petition stands dismissed. As a sequel, stay if any

stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.

                                                                              JUDGE




 suhanjit

RAJKUMAR          Digitally signed by
                  RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT          SINGHA
                  Date: 2024.04.06
SINGHA            13:03:27 +05'30'