Tripura High Court
Sri Tapan Kumar Paul & Others vs The State Of Tripura & Others on 9 May, 2024
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.68 of 2024
Sri Tapan Kumar Paul & others
.........Petitioner(s);
Versus
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate,
Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
09/05/2024
Petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayer:
"(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 give the benefit of
regular pay scale to the petitioners w.e.f. the date on which the petitioners
completed 5 years Govt. service including the period served by the Petitioner
No.1 as Under Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 18.11.2017 to 28.06.2021 on fixed pay
basis, the period served by the Petitioner No.2 as Under Graduate w.e.f.
17.11.2017 to 02.01.2021 on fixed pay basis & the period served by the
Petitioner No.3 w.e.f. 17.11.2017 to 28.06.2021 on fixed pay basis and thereafter
w.e.f. their date of joining as Graduate Teacher on fixed pay basis against the
fixed pay posts created keeping in abeyance regular pay scale posts along with
ancillary and consequential, pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits.
(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 strike down the
following condition of the Memos, dated, 19.01.2021 i.e. offer of appointment of
the petitioners "Government servant joining service of the State Govt. on or after
01.07.2018 shall not be governed by the existing CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and
orders issued there under from time to time. So far as their pension and other
retirement benefits are concerned, they will be governed by a new set of pension
scheme."
(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, that the petitioners
are covered by the memo dated 28.11.2018 issued by the Finance Department
(Pension Cell), Government of Tripura
(iv) Make the rules absolute
(v) Call for records
(vi) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered
fit and proper."
2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the writ petitioners, are
referred to hereinafter. Petitioners contended that they initially joined as Under
Graduate Teachers under the Directorate of Elementary Education on
18.11.2017, 17.11.2017 and 17.11.2017 respectively. Thereafter, they appeared
in the Selection Tests for the post of Graduate Teacher conducted by TRBT
after having No Objection Certificate and got selected for the post of Graduate
Teacher under the same department. Technical resignation tendered by them
was accepted and subsequently they joined in the post of Graduate Teacher on
29.06.2021, 04.01.2021 and 29.06.2021 respectively. It is submitted that
services of all the petitioners ought to have been regularized w.e.f. completion
of 5 years' of their service on fixed pay basis since their initial joining as Under
Graduate Teacher which has not been taken care of. The Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India has also issued an office
memorandum dated 17.08.2016 regarding the effect of the technical
resignation. The said memo is also adopted in the State of Tripura and it
provides that in case of Technical Resignation, the past service of an employee
is counted for all purposes. The resignation is treated as technical resignation if
the employee has applied through proper channel for a post in the same or some
other department and on selection is required to resign from the previous post
for administrative reasons. Petitioners contend that similarly situated teachers
had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.722/2022 and vide judgment
and order dated 17.03.2023, this Court had directed the department to consider
their representations. Thereafter, vide memorandum dated 17.12.2023, three
writ petitioners have been granted the benefit of past service. According to the
petitioners, the instant case is also covered by the judgment and order dated
06.01.2021 passed in WP(C) No.234/2020 and other batch matters wherein this
Court extended benefit of past service to persons appointed to teaching posts
from non-teaching posts. The representations made by the petitioners on
17.12.2022, 03.01.2024 and 06.01.2024 have not yet been acted upon.
Therefore, they have approached this Court.
3. Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that
the respondents may be directed to consider the representations of the
petitioners in accordance with law and grant the aforesaid benefits. He also
relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Tarendra Reang & others v.
The State of Tripura & others in WP(C) No.234 of 2020 and other batch
matters wherein pursuant to the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by this Court,
those writ petitioners have been granted the benefit of past service. As such, the
respondents may be directed to take a decision in accordance with law in
respect of the present petitioners also.
4. Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate
for the respondents-State, submits that instructions are awaited in this matter.
However, since the consideration on this issue at the first instance lies before
the competent authority under the department; in case the representations of the
petitioners have not been considered on account of enforcement of the Model
Code of Conduct, the respondent-department would consider them in
accordance with law in a suitable time as may be directed by this Court.
5. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for by the petitioners,
since the representations of the petitioners are pending before the concerned
respondent authority, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case deems it proper to direct the competent authority/respondent No.2 to
take a decision upon their representations in accordance with law within a
reasonable period preferably within 16(sixteen) weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.
6. The instant petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2024.05.15 12:03:29 +05'30'
Pijush/
