Tripura High Court
Smt. Pratima Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 25 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)No.1077 of 2022
Smt. Pratima Debbarma,
Wife of Sri Bakul Sarkar,
Resident of village: Brahmachara,
P.O. Brahmachara, P.S. Teliamura,
District: Khowai Tripura,
PIN:799 205, aged about 41 years
----Petitioner (s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura ,
represented by the Commissioner & Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Tripura,
Having his office at Secretariat Building,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
District: West Tripura, PIN:799 006
2. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Tripura,
Having his office at Secretariat Building,
P.O. Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex,
District: West Tripura, PIN:799 006
3. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura,
Having his office at Secretariat Building,
P.O. Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex,
District: West Tripura, PIN:799 006
4. The Director of School Education,
Education Department, Government of Tripura,
Having his office at Shiksha Bhavan,
Office Lane, P.O. Agartala, PS West Agartala,
District: West Tripura
---- Respondents (s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Janhavi Mahana, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rana Gopal Chakraborty, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 11.04.2025
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 25.04.2025
Whether fit for
Reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
By means of filing this writ petition the petitioner has
prayed for 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 issued, for directing them, to
transmit the records, appertaining to this writ
petition, lying with them, for rendering
substantive and conscionable justice to the
petitioner, and for quashing/setting aside the
impugned Offer of Appointment (Annexure-5
supra) insofar as it grants a fixed monthly pay to
the petitioner, and negating the seniority of the
past service, rendered by her, regular pay scale,
pay protection, i.e., counting the past service for
the purpose of fixation of pay, leave encashment,
leave salary, gratuity and all other admissible
benefits.
(ii) Issue 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, for mandating/directing
them, to revoke/rescind the impugned Offer of
Appointment (Annexure-5 supra), and
thereupon, reckon the past service, rendered by
the petitioner, while determining the seniority,
regular pay scale, pay protection, i.e., counting
the past service for the purpose of fixation of
pay, leave encashment, leave salary, gratuity
and all other admissible service benefits,
including pension, as well as the arrears of salary
and allowances, in conformity with the directions,
contained in the Judgment & Order dated
07.05.2014 with the directions, contained in the
Judgment & Order dated 07.05.2014 (referred to
supra), as affirmed, vide the Judgment & Order
dated 23.03.2017 (referred to supra) as well as
the Judgment & Order dated 29.01.2020
(referred to supra);
(iii) Call for the records appertaining to this writ
petition;
(iv) Make the rules absolute.
(v) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make
the Rule Absolute in terms of i. & ii. above;
(vi) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High
Court may deem fit and proper;
02. Heard Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Somik Deb
assisted by Ms. Janhavi Mahana, Learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr. Rana Gopal
Chakraborty, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
State-respondents.
03. At the time of hearing Learned Senior Counsel
Mr. Deb appearing on behalf of the petitioner first of all
drawn the attention of the court referring the memorandum
dated 15.07.2010 i.e. offer of appointment of the petitioner
as a Post Graduate Teacher (Annexure-1) and submitted
that by the said memorandum the petitioner was given the
offer of appointment for the post of Post Graduate Teacher
under Education Department, Govt. of Tripura on fixed pay
basis and accordingly the petitioner joined to the said post
and in this regard one memo dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure-
2 to this writ petition) was issued by the School Education
Department, Government of Tripura. After that as the
appointment of the present petitioner and others were
challenged before the Division Bench of this High Court and
ultimately by the memorandum dated 23.12.2017 of
Directorate of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura
in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India the period of extension of service of terminated
teachers were extended till 01.01.2018. Thereafter their
period of extension of service as Ad-hoc Teachers were
extended and terminated with effect from 31.03.2020
(afternoon)(Annexure-4 of this writ petition). After that the
present petitioner further applied for fresh selection process
as a Graduate Teacher, so on the recommendation of the
Teachers Recruitment Board dated 11.02.2022 the present
petitioner was appointed as a Graduate Teacher under
School Education Department, Govt. of Tripura on fixed pay
basis (Annexure-5 memo dated 18.04.2022). Thereafter,
few teachers who were terminated filed a case for reckon
the past service rendered by those petitioners while
determining their seniority, regular pay scale, pay
protection, i.e., counting the past services for the purpose
of fixation of pay, leave encashment, leave salary, gratuity
and all other admissible service benefits including pension
as well as the arrears of salary and allowances in conformity
with the directions, contained in the judgment and order
dated 07.05.2024, 23.03.2017 and 29.01.2020 and
according to Learned Senior Counsel Hon'ble the Division
Bench of this High Court at the time of disposal of
WP(C)435 of 2018 in para No.3 discussed about the
judgment dated 07.05.2024 titled as Tanmoy Nath and
Ors. vs. State of Tripura and Ors. reported in (2014)2
TLR 731 wherein in the said judgment in para No.125
Hon'ble the Division Bench observed as under:
"125. We would also like to make it clear that other than
the benefits indicated by us above there can be no
reservation/preference on the basis of age. There shall
be no preference to dependent government servants or
retired government employee or retrenched employees
etc. There can be no reservation for linguistic or religious
minorities or on area wise basis. It is further made clear
that if the persons who are selected in the previous
selection are again selected then the service rendered by
them earlier shall be counted for the purpose of seniority,
pension and all other purposes."
Further in para No.5,6,7,8 and 9 of the said
judgment dated 21.01.2019 in WP(C)No.435 of 2018 the
Division Bench of this High Court further observed as under:
"5. It is not in dispute that insofar as para 125
reproduced (supra), with emphasis is concerned, has
attained finality.
The State is bound to comply with the same.
To our reading, if any one of the already selected
candidates are again selected in terms of the fresh
selection process, then their earlier services so
rendered by them has to be counted for the benefit
of seniority, pension and all other purposes.
6. Before us, it is not in dispute that the present writ
petitioners, pursuant to the directions issued by this
Court reproduced(supra) had participated in the fresh
selection process so undertaken by the Government. It is
also not in dispute that they stand selected, in
accordance with law. Also letters of appointment stand
issued, which they accepted and the petitioners posted
with their joining at the appropriate places of posting.
Their selection and appointment is to the very same post
to which they earlier stood selected and appointed.
7. It is the petitioners' grievance that notwithstanding
the directions issued by this Court, unambiguous in
nature, the State Government, in utter disregard, rather
in contempt, have issued fresh letters of appointment,
completely ignoring the past services so rendered by
them and treating their service as a fresh from the date
of their selection so undertaken pursuant to and in terms
of fresh selection process.
8. Well, to our mind, this exercise undertaken by the
Government is not in the spirit, rather in utter disregard
of the directions issued by this Court. The directions as
we have already expressed are unambiguously clear. Past
service rendered by a candidate, who was selected and
had discharged his/her duties had to be counted for the
purposes of seniority, pension and all other benefits.
Candidates stood selected to the very same post.
9. As such, in our considered view, the writ petition needs
to be allowed with a direction to the State to treat the
past service of each one of the petitioner(s), so rendered
in relation to the earlier selection process, for the
purposes of seniority, pension and all other benefits. All
consequential action shall positively be undertaken by
the State within a period of 3(three) months. Equally,
monetary benefits, if any, shall be disbursed within the
aforesaid period."
According to Learned Senior Counsel the said
judgment attained finality as the respondent-authority did
not challenge the said judgment delivered by the Division
Bench of this High Court.
04. Learned Senior Counsel further referred another
judgment delivered by the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice of
High Court of Tripura in connection with WP(C)No.295 of
2019, WP(C)354 of 2019, WP(C)355 of 2019, WP(C)1012 of
2019, WP(C)296 of 2019, WP(C)677 of 2019, WP(C)1013 of
2019, WP(C)1014 of 2019, WP(C)1155 of 2019, WP(C)1156
of 2019, WP(C)1157 of 2019, WP(C)1158 of 2019,
WP(C)1159 of 2019, WP(C)1160 of 2019, WP(C)1161 of
2019, WP(C)1162 of 2019, WP(C)1043 of 2019, WP(C)1062
of 2019, WP(C)1070 of 2019, WP(C)1071 of 2019,
WP(C)1072 of 2019, WP(C)1260 of 2019, WP(C)1099 of
2019, WP(C)1210 of 2019, WP(C)1211 of 2019, WP(C)1215
of 2019, WP(C)1234 of 2019, WP(C)1235 of 2019,
WP(C)1237, of 2019 WP(C)1238 of 2019, WP(C)1280 of
2019, WP(C)1281 of 2019, WP(C)1283 of 2019, WP(C)1284
of 2019 and WP(C)1303 of 2019 dated 29.01.2020 wherein
in para Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 this High Court made some
clarification mentioning three categories of persons who are
entitled to be admissible benefits in view of para-125 of the
judgment of Tanmoy Nath (supra). According to Learned
Senior Counsel Mr. Deb the said judgment of the Hon'ble
Chief Justice delivered in the aforesaid cases was also not
challenged by the State authority resulting which the same
also attained finality and those petitioners were given
benefits of past service (Annexure-7 to this petition).
05. Learned Senior Counsel again argued that by the
said judgment of the Coordinate Bench i.e. the then Hon'ble
Chief Justice of this High Court dated 29.01.2020 in the
aforesaid batch matters of cases in para 30(iii) the following
observation was made by the High Court:
"(iii) In Category-III cases, the petitioners' past service
would be counted for the limited purpose of retaining
their leave credit, provident fund, pension and gratuity
and further that they will be placed in the regular scale of
pay from the date of their fresh appointment and the pay
will be fixed at the minimum of the scale. They would
receive all admissible allowances."
Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that
regarding granting benefits in respect of past service for
category (III) cases, the case of the present petitioner
covers. The said judgment also has not been challenged by
the respondent authority, thus it has also attained finality.
06. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
thereafter few persons as petitioners filed cases before this
High Court bearing No. WP(C)901 of 2021, WP(C)902 of
2021, WP(C)903 of 2021, WP(C)904 of 2021, WP(C)962 of
2021, WP(C)963 of 2021, WP(C)964 of 2021, WP(C)965 of
2021 and WP(C)17 of 2022 seeking certain reliefs for
covering the gap i.e. the teachers who were terminated on
31.03.2020 and before that date and got selected for some
other posts or who were later on applied for the post of
Graduate Teachers and appointed later on after 31.03.2020.
It was further submitted by Learned Senior Counsel that
after the termination of employment as per memo dated
31.03.2020 (Annexure-4) the present petitioner was out of
employment for certain period. Although he applied for the
post of Graduate Teacher under TRBT and later on vide
memo dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure-5) she was again given
the offer of appointment to the post of Graduate Teacher as
already stated. So there was a gap on and from 01.04.2020
to 17.04.2022 because during that period she rendered no
service under the department and in this regard a
Coordinate Bench of this High Court by a judgment dated
20.05.2022 (Annexure-8 to this petition) in the aforesaid
cases in para No.11 made the following observation for
regularization of the non-working period with effect from
01.04.2020:
"[11] In the circumstances, this court is persuaded to
direct the respondents to regularise the gap commencing
from 01.04.2020 till the date of joining of each of the writ
petitioners by deeming them to be in service and the non-
working period meaning the gap period be regularised by
granting admissible non-paid leave [EOL]. So far the
other benefits are concerned, that shall be released in
favour of the petitioners in terms of the directions in
Sangita Reang (supra), as reproduced above, finding out
their relevant categories."
According to Learned Senior Counsel the State
authority also has not challenged the said judgment. Thus
the same judgment has also attained finality. Learned
Senior Counsel further submitted that although the writ
petitioner annexed a judgment passed in connection with
Case No.WP(C)No.10 of 2022 (Annexure-9 to this petition)
but submitted that he is not relying upon the said judgment
for decision of this writ petition. Finally Learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged for
granting the past service benefit rendered by the petitioner
as a Post Graduate Teacher.
07. The State-respondents have filed their counter-
affidavit denying the assertions made by the petitioner in
her writ petition but in para No.10 of the counter-affidavit
the State-respondents took the following plea:
"10. That, with regard to paragraphs-2.20 of the writ
petition, I say that the writ petition WP(C)No.295/2019
is concerned to those teachers who were appointed as
Graduate Teacher & Post Graduate Teachers in 2010 and
Under Graduate Teachers in 2014 and terminated on
31.12.2017 and thereafter joined on ad-hoc basis and
during their ad-hoc service selected/joined afresh to the
post of Under Graduate Teachers/Graduate Teacher/Post
Graduate Teachers prior to 31.03.2020. All the eligible
candidates allowed the benefits of past service in
pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2020
passed in W.P.(C)295/2019.
The petitioner of the instant writ petition was
terminated on 31.03.2020 from her ad-hoc service and
while the petitioner applied for the post of Graduate
Teacher and joined the post of Graduate Teacher in 2022,
she was not in service. Hence the claim of the petitioners
for extension of the benefit of past service in the light of
the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2020 passed in
WP(C)295/2019 is not justified."
08. In course of hearing of argument Learned
Counsel appearing for the state-respondents Mr. R. G.
Chakraborty submitted that on similar issues so many cases
were filed before the Single Bench ultimately those cases
went up to appellate forum. But he sought for time to obtain
some instructions and accordingly time was granted and he
placed some inputs before the court. He annexed one
judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in
connection with Case No.WA No.304 of 2021, WA No.162 of
2022, WA No.163 of 2022, WA No.164 of 2022, WA No.165
of 2022, WA No.166 of 2022, WA No.167 of 2022, WA
No.172 of 2022, WA No.173 of 2022, WA No.176 of 2022,
WA No.25 of 2023, WA No.68 of 2023, WA No.69 of 2023,
WA No.92 of 2023 and WP(C)No.625 of 2023 and submitted
that in the said judgment in para Nos.15-18 the Division
Bench of this High Court made the following observations:
"[15] As noted above, the distinction which is
sought to be drawn in the present batch of writ
petitions/appeals is on the ground that the writ
petitioners herein were re-employed after their
services came to an end on 31st March, 2020. It is,
however, not in dispute that the writ petitioners
had participated in the fresh selection exercise
which was initiated by the State Government prior
to 31st March, 2020 and possibly the selection
process was over but the offer of appointments
were made after 31st March, 2020. In the case of
Ajoy Debbarma (supra), the apex court at Para-18
of the judgment made an observation which is
profitably quoted hereunder:
"18. In our view, considering the fact that
the very selection and appointments were
found to be illegal and invalid, no other
advantage can be conferred upon the
candidates concerned. It must be noted that
the attempt on the part of the State in
offering certain alternate employment is not
to degrade the teachers but some solace is
being offered even in cases where the
candidates do not succeed in the selections
to the posts of teachers. The candidates, if
they are otherwise competent and eligible,
will certainly have every opportunity till
31.03.2023 to get selected for the posts of
teachers in the State and by way of
additional benefit those who are
unsuccessful in such attempts may retain
the alternate employment. In our view, it
does not amount to any degradation." [16]
The Apex Court taking note of the fact that
the fresh selection exercise may entail
sometime made it clear that the candidates
who were one of those 10323 teachers and
whose services were terminated will have
opportunity till 31st March, 2023 to get
selected for the post of teachers in the State
if they are otherwise competent and
eligible."
[17] The important rider for availing of such
benefit as also observed in the case of Sangita
Reang & others (supra) are twofold (i) that these
candidates had continued in employment after 31st
December, 2017 on adhoc extensions till 31st
March, 2020 and (ii) they had applied before the
competent authority for participating in the fresh
selection exercise. This Court is not required to
enter into the scrutiny of claims of individual writ
petitioners in these present batch of cases. The
cases of individual writ petitioners would be
examined by the competent authority under the
Government of Tripura in the light of the principles
discussed hereinabove. However, if individual writ
petitioners satisfy the conditions prescribed
hereinabove and also laid down in the case of
Sangita Reang & others (supra), they would be
entitled to the benefit of past service devised by
the learned Court in the case of Sangita Reang &
others (supra) depending upon which of the three
categories they fall.
[18] Having held so, this Court deems it proper to
direct the competent authority under the
department to scrutinize the case of individual writ
petitioners in the light of the principles laid down
hereinabove and take a decision within a period of
3[three] months from the date of receipt of the
copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the
consequential benefits, if any, arising out of such
decision shall flow in favour of the individual writ
petitioners who satisfy the conditions prescribed
hereinabove."
Referring the same he further submitted that
similar direction like above may be given to the State-
authority to consider the grievance of the present petitioner
in letter and spirit.
09. On the other hand, Learned Senior Counsel Mr.
Deb succinctly submitted that the state-respondent is also
not in a position to express their views case to case basis
and although the State has preferred SLP challenging some
of the judgments before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but
there was no stay order or any other order delivered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court to stay operation of those judgments.
However, he fairly submitted that for the sake of justice a
similar direction may be given to the state-respondents to
consider her case so that her grievances can be resolved by
the respondents-authority which Learned Counsel for the
state-respondents also agreed upon. So after hearing both
the sides, this instant writ petition stands disposed of with a
direction to the state-respondents/authority/department to
consider of the case of the present petitioner within a period
of three months from the date of passing of the
judgment/order and the petitioner of this case be asked to
submit a representation to the respective department for
consideration of her grievances in the light of the judgment
delivered by this court today within 15 (fifteen) days from
the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
A copy of this judgment accordingly be furnished
to Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner for information
and necessary action free of cost.
With this observation and direction, this writ petition
stands allowed and disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
JUDGE
MOUMITA MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA 22:50:32 +05'30'
Moumita
