Tripura High Court
Ersad Mia Maisan vs The State Of Tripura on 17 January, 2025
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 238 OF 2022
1.Ersad Mia Maisan,
S/O- Late Jalfu Mia Maisan, R/O- West Durlavnarayan, Ward No.2,
Sonamura, Sepahijala, Tripura, PIN - 799115, Age - 36 years,
2.Shiuli Sinha,
W/O- Mr. Sanjay Sinha, R/O- Bardowali, Milan Sangha, Ward No. 39, Sadar,
A.D Nagar, West -Tripura, Pin -799003, Age - 36,
3.Moumita Choudhury,
W/O- Shri Nitish Chakraborti, R/O- Fulchari, Ward no. 07, Kamalpur Nagar
Panchayat, Kamalpur, Dhalai, Tripura, PIN 799285, Age - 44 years,
4.Pradip Majumder,
S/o- Late Birendra Kumar Majumder, R/O- Thakurchhara, Thakurcharra,
Baikhora, Santirbazar, South Tripura, Tripura, PIN - 799141, Age - 56 years,
5.Arup Sutradhar,
S/O- Lt.Arabinda Sutradhar, R/O- Chandrapur Ashram Road, West
Chandrapur, Chandrapur GP, Ward No.3, Dharmanagar, North Tripura
799251, Age - 49 years,
6.Jayanta Das Choudhury,
S/O- Lt. Nalini Ranjan Das Choudhury, R/o- West Gobindapur, Kailasahar,
Ward no. 9, Unakoti, PIN - 799277, Age - 55 years,
7.Pankaj Debroy,
S/O- Late Prodyut Chandra Debroy, R/O- Manikbhandar, Kamalpur, Dhalai,
Tripura, PIN - 799287, Age - 43 years,
8.Suprita Sarkar Patari,
W/O- Asit Patari, R/O Sarasima, Belonia, South Tripura, Pin - 799155, Age -
35 years,
9.Sahadeb Chakraborty,
S/O- Late Gopal Chakraborty, R/O- Murapara, Kakraban, Udaipur, Gomati,
Tripura, PIN - 799013, Age - 54 years,
10.Ajoy Debnath,
S/O- Shri. Dulal Debnath , R/O- Muddapara, Ward No.03, (Near Bamboo
Market, Khayerpur), Dalura, Khayerpur, Bodhjungnagar, Jirania, West
Tripura, PIN - 799008, Age - 33 years,
11.Biswajit Nath,
S/O- Late Pramath Nath , R/O- Noagaon, Ward No. 06 (Near Dear Club),
Kamalpur Nagar Panchayet, Kamalpur, Dhalai, Tripura, PIN - 799285, Age -
51 years,
2
12.Sanjib Debnath,
S/O-Sri. Subal Debnath, R/O- Barjala, Bankimnagar, Ward No.01 (Near
Jirania Railway Station), Jirania Nagar Panchayat, Birendranagar, West
Tripura, Tripura, PIN - 799045, Age 32 years,
13.Swapna Debnath,
W/O- Rabindra Debnath, R/O Salema, Dhalai, Tripura, PIN - 799278, Age -
37,
14.Biswajit Sinha,
S/O- Late Joges Chandra Sinha, R/O- Lutma Colony, Baralutma, Kamalpur-
Dhalai, Tripura, PIN - 799286, Age - 53 years,
15.Bhabatosh Singha,
S/o-Late Santosh Ranjan Singha, R/O- Kailasahar, Ward no.17 (Near Airport),
Kailasahar Municipality, Unakoti, Tripura, Pin - 799277, Age - 45 years,
16.Prabal Sinha,
S/O- late Gandharaj Sinha, R/O- Rupashpur Ward no.2, Kamalpur Nagar
Panchayat, kamalpur, Dhalai, Tripura, PIN - 799285, Age - 53 years,
17.Biswajit Sutradhar,
S/O- Late Jogesh Chandra Sutradhar, R/O- South Matabari, R.K Pur, Udaipur,
Gomati District, Tripura, PIN - 799013, Age - 44,
18.Sujan Chandra Rudra Paul,
S/O- Parimal Rudra Paul, R/O- Krisnanagar, Ranirbazar, West Tripura, pin -
799035, Age - 31 years,
19.Narayan Das,
S/O- Late Nani Gopal Das, R/o- Kobra Khamar Ward No.3 (Near Kobra
khamar H.S School) Jirania, West Tripura, Pin - 799035, Age - 33 years,
20.Birendra Ch Das,
S/O- Late Jatindra Ch Das, R/O- Noabadi, Jirania, West Tripura, Pin -
799045, Age - 48 years,
21.Sanjoy Das,
S/O- Shri. Mridul Kanti Das, R/O- Bankim nagar, Ward No.1, (Near Friends
Club), Jirania Nagar Panchayat, Birendra Nagar, Jirania, West Tripura, pin -
799045, Age - 33 years,
22.Manikya Bahadur Jamatia,
S/O- Shri. Dasharath Jamatia, R/O- Dalak, Malbasa, Birganja, Amarpur,
Gomati, Tripura, Age - 33,
23.Dharmendra Noatia,
S/O- Durja Dhan Noatia, R/O- Takma Chara, Santir Bazar, South Tripura,
Tripura, PIN - 799125, Age - 34 years,
3
24.Rupa Rupini,
D/o- Shri. Krishna Prasad Rupini, R/O- Vrigudas Bari, Jirania, West Tripura,
PIN - 799045,
25.Binod Chakma,
S/O- Shri. Bir Kumar Chakma, R/O- New Tuikarmaw, East Manu,
Santirbazar, South Tripura, PIN - 799144,
26.Mijanur Rahaman,
S/O- Lt. Alkas Miah, R/O- Aralia, Sonamura, Sepahijala, Tripura, PIN -
799131, Age - 34,
27.Akter Hossain,
S/O- Ismail Mia, R/O- Kulubari, Ward No.5, (Near Kulubari Girls‟ S B
School) Sonamura, Sepahijala, Tripura, PIN - 799131, Age - 43 years,
.....Petitioners.
Versus
1.The State of Tripura,
To be represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of School
Education, Government of Tripura,) New Secretariat Building, New Capital
Complex, Kunjaban, P.S - New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN
- 799010,
2.The Director,
O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane,
Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin - 799003,
3.The Secretary, Department of Finance,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S - New capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN - 799010,
4.The State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan,
(O/o the School Education Department, Govt of Tripura, Shiksha Bhavan,
Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN - 799001),
5.Union of India,
Ministry of Education, to be represented by the Secretary, 109-C, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001,
.....Respondents.
For the petitioners : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. S. S. Dey, Advocate General,
Ms. A. Chakraborty, Advocate.
: Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Dy.SGI
Date of hearing : 03.09.2024
Date of delivery of : 17.01.2025
judgment & Order
Whether fit for : No
reporting
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order
By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have
prayed for following reliefs:
"i. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why writ in
the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby
directing the Respondents to regularize the service of the Petitioners with all
consequent service benefits.
ii. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in
the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby
directing the Respondents to grant regular pay scale pertaining to the posts
of Post Graduate Teacher w.e.f. the date when the Petitioners have
completed 5 years of service.
iii. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in
the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby
directing the Respondents to give the benefit flowing from the common
judgment, dated 23.02.2021, passed in WP(C) No.329/2015 in Sajal Deb
Versus State of Tripura & others & WP(C) No.212/2016, passed by the
Hon'ble High Court in Monoj Debbarma Versus State of Tripura & others.
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. Brief facts, as necessary for determining the issues raised in this
writ petition are that the petitioners being the Post Graduate Teachers were
serving under the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (for short, RMSA)
ranging from the year 2011/2012 and presently they have been serving under
Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan as like as Post Graduate Teachers of the State
Government. The object of the Scheme was to enhance enrolment in Classes
IX and X by providing of a secondary school within a reasonable distance of
every habitation, to ensure access for universal enrolment of the young
students. It has been asserted in the writ petition the Additional Secretary to
the Govt. of Tripura, Department of School Education, vide Notification
dated, 23.04.2018 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] notified that, in
accordance with the decision of the Govt. of India, an integrated Scheme for
School Education in Tripura i.e. Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, has been
launched extending from Pre-School to Class-XII from the financial year
2018-19 under a single State Implementing Society of Samagra Shiksha
Abhiyan, Tripura, with administrative control of the State Project Director, by
subsuming/merging the existing centrally sponsored schemes of Sarba
Shiksha Abhiyan, [SSA], Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan, [RMSA]
and Teacher Education [TE].
2.1 It has further been asserted in the writ petition that the petitioners
having requisite qualification were selected and subsequently appointed as
Post Graduate Teachers under RMSA. Initially their appointment was for
1(one) year and subsequently, the tenure has been renewed from time to time.
2.2 It is contended that, the petitioners were appointed against the
duly created sanctioned posts. According to the petitioners, though they have
been appointed under erstwhile RMSA and presently working under Samagra
Shiksha Abhiyan, Tripura. It is, therefore, urged that so far qualification is
concerned there is absolutely no difference between the petitioners and their
counterparts in the Education Department who are in regular capacity as Post
Graduate Teachers. In support of their contention, they have mentioned and
relied upon a common judgment and order dated 18.12.2020 of this Court
passed by learned Single Judge (the then Chief Justice, Mr. Akil Kureshi, J.)
in WP(C) No. 89 of 2020 [Snehangshu Das & Ors. Vs. The State of Tripura
& Ors.] along with other writ petitions whereby the learned Single Judge had
allowed the writ petitions with a direction to extend the regular pay scale to
the petitioners after completion of their continuous 5 years of service on fixed
pay basis. Similarly, the petitioners further mentioned and relied upon another
common judgment and order dated 23.02.2021, passed by a Division Bench of
this Court in WP(C) No.329 of 2015 [Sajal Deb Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.]
along with another writ petition whereby the Division Bench of this Court
directed the State Govt. to frame a scheme for regularization of service of the
contractual teaching staffs working under Sarba Shiksha Abhiyan [SSA] and
to allow regular scale of pay to all contractual teachers who have already
completed 5 years of service from their initial engagement.
2.3 It has been further contended that keeping in view of the said
common judgment and order, the State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha,
Tripura vide Notification dated 30.09.2021 [Annexure-29 to the writ petition]
notified a scheme and accordingly, vide Memo dated 17.11.2021 [Annexure-
30 to the writ petition] a scheme has been formulated under different
categories that all the teaching staffs of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan will be
allowed regular scale of pay on completion of 5 years of service from the date
of their initial engagement, irrespective of which categories of the scheme
they fall.
2.4 Thus, according to the petitioners it was their legitimate
expectation that they would also be covered by the said scheme for giving
them the same benefit in terms of the aforesaid judgment passed in Sajal Deb
(supra). The petitioners had submitted several representations, but, the matter
was not considered. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. S. S. Dey, learned Advocate General assisted by Mrs. A.
Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Mr.
Bidyut Majumder, learned Dy.SGI appearing for the respondent-Union of
India.
4. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners at the very outset has submitted that the petitioners had been
appointed against the duly sanctioned posts. Albeit, they were appointed under
erstwhile RMSA, but presently they have been working under Samagra
Shiksha Abhiyan. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel advanced his
argument with a plea that by the Notifications dated 18.11.2011, 28.05.2012
and 22.08.2014 [Annexure-19, 20 and 21 of the writ petition] respectively
issued by the State Mission Director, RMSA, Director of Secondary
Education, Govt. of Tripura, it was notified that all contractual teachers and
other managerial staffs engaged under RMSA are eligible to enjoy casual
leave, maternity leave, commuted leave on medical ground, extra-ordinary
leave etc. in line with the State Government employees. It is further argued
that the monthly remuneration of the petitioners has been increased from time
to time, but, they have not been provided the benefit of regular pay scale and
their services were not regularized after completion of 5 years since their
initial engagement, though vide Notification dated 03.11.2010 [Annexure-10
to the writ petition], they have been selected and subsequently appointed in
different Schools under RMSA. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel
contended that the respondents are also treating the petitioners and their
counterparts similarly so far assigning of duties and responsibilities are
concerned. Further, Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel argued that as
per the State Government norms and guidelines, the petitioners became
entitled to regularization of their services with regular scale of pay on
completion of 5 years of service. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Sajal
Deb (supra), Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel submitted that the State
Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, Tripura vide Notification dated 30.09.2021
had notified a scheme in compliance of the judgment and order of Sajal Deb
(supra) whereby the teaching staffs of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan had been
allowed regular pay scale after completion of 5 years service, but, the
petitioners of this writ petition had been excluded from giving such benefit for
the reasons best known to the respondents. Further, it has been agitated that
since the RMSA, Sarba Shiksha Abhiyan and Teachers Education have been
merged into Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan [SmSA], the judgment passed by this
Court in Sajal Deb (supra) is squarely applicable to the petitioners. According
to Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, non-consideration of
regularization of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
In support of their submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners have submitted the following case laws:
i. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ilmo Devi & Anr. (2021) 20
SCC 290;
ii. Ushaben Joshi Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2277;
iii. Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
SCC OnLine SC 1533.
5. Contrary to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Dey, learned Advocate General on basis of counter affidavit filed by the
respondent nos. 1 to 4 very explicitly submitted that RMSA was launched in
2009-2010 and on and from 01.04.2018 the integrated scheme Samagra
Shiksha Abhiyan [SmSA] was introduced subsuming both SSA and RMSA. It
is submitted that while erstwhile SSA teachers were appointed on contract
basis for a specified period, the teachers under RMSA were appointed as
Secondary Level Teachers for a fixed period of 11 (eleven) months and
reappointed for the next academic year after a lapse of 1(one) day/month; the
break being not artificial and rather actuated to fit in the needs and tenure of
the academic session. Mr. Dey, learned Advocate General submitted that
RMSA as well as the present SSA schemes are centrally sponsored schemes
under the funding pattern of 90% by Central Government and 10% by State
Government of Tripura; hence, any change, fixation, up-gradation etc. of the
service condition relating to the erstwhile RMSA teachers do not rest solely
within the domain of State Government and rather any financial implication
thereof will have to be decided and shared by the Central Government as per
the aforesaid current funding pattern of 90:10 ratio.
6. Further, RMSA teachers being Secondary Education teachers,
Mr. Dey, learned Advocate General admitted that in terms of the judgment
and order dated 23.02.2021 passed by this Court in Sajal Deb (supra) the
State Government had formulated a scheme dated 30.09.2021 for
regularization of Contract Teachers engaged under erstwhile Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan [SSA], now Samagra Shiksha, Tripura on the basis of status of
acquisition of qualifications classifying them in different categories. Learned
Advocate General strongly contended that the scheme dated 30.09.2021 is
only applicable for Contract Teachers of erstwhile Sarva Shiksha scheme, now
working under Samagra Shiksha scheme and not for Post Graduate Teachers
[PGT], Contract Teachers of erstwhile RMSA scheme, now working under
Samagra Shiksha scheme. According to Mr. Dey, learned Advocate General,
engagement to the post of PGT is purely made on contract basis on a fixed
remuneration for a period of 1(one) year only from the date of joining the
school and such engagement does not conform any right to the PGTs to claim
regular engagement. Therefore, learned Advocate General urged before this
Court that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
In support of his contention, learned Advocate General has
referred to the decisions rendered in- (i) Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar &
Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Sc 1417 and
WP(C) 5 of 2023 [Sri Satya Ranjan Dey & Anr. Vs. The State of Tripura
& Ors.] passed by this Court.
7. Mr. Majumder, learned Dy.SGI appearing for the respondent-
Union of India at the time of argument pointed out that the Central
Government is only to provide financial support as per the scheme norms.
However, such support would be based on certain desirable guiding principles
and required to be followed by the State/U.Ts. It is also pointed out by the
learned Dy.SGI that the salary structure will be determined by the State/U.T.
norms. There will be no separate teachers as sanctioned by the Centre, rather,
all teachers are ultimately under the responsibility of the State/U.T.
Government. However, the salary and pay fixation for these teachers has to be
done by the respective States/UTs and Central Government has no role in it.
Referring to sub-para (ix) of Para 18 of the counter affidavit, Learned Dy.SGI
further contended that the use of funds would be governed by the approved
interventions within the ceilings decided by the empowered committee of the
department, i.e. the Project Approval Board headed by Secretary, Department
of School Education & Literacy. Therefore, to maintain uniformity in central
support for teachers‟ salary for all States/UTs and provide funds for quality
enhancement, the ceiling limits for support for teachers‟ salaries have been
laid down under the integrated scheme. Thus, while the teachers will continue
to be governed by the terms and conditions of the respective State/UTs, the
support under the integrated scheme would be the same across all States and
UTs in the country. According to Mr. Majumder, learned Dy.SGI the
petitioners are not entitled to get any relief/reliefs as sought for and hence, the
instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioners have approached
this Court with a prayer to direct the State-respondents to regularise their
services with all consequential benefits from the date when the petitioners
have completed 5 years of service.
9. The petitioners were appointed as Post Graduate Teachers in the
year 2011/2012 under Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) which
has now been merged into the present scheme namely, Samagra Siksha
Abhiyan (SmSA). Initially, the petitioners were appointed for 1(one) year as
contractual teachers on fixed pay basis on condition that they would be
terminated at any time, but, subsequently, the tenure of their service has been
renewed from time to time. In one of the advertisements [Annexure-10 to the
writ petition], it is specifically mentioned that "engagement is purely contract
basis on fixed remuneration for a period for one year only from the date of
engagement" (condition no.1). The second stipulation as mentioned in
condition no.2 is that "further continuation of engagement only on
satisfactory performances which may be evaluated periodically." From the
nature of their appointments it is crystal clear that their appointments were
mainly on contractual basis in terms of the Scheme.
10. The State-respondents in their reply stated that RmSA was
launched in 2009-2010 and from the year 2018 the said scheme has been
merged into Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan [SmSA] with the other two similar
schemes such as, Sarva Shiksha and Teacher Education. In the counter
affidavit the State-respondents have categorically stated that in terms of the
Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Sajal Deb (supra), the State-respondents had formulated a scheme
vide notification dated 30.09.2021 for regularisation of contract teachers
engaged under erstwhile Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, now Samagra Shiksha,
Tripura and on the basis of status of acquisition of qualifications, SmSA
contract teachers have been grouped under separate categories.
11. In the aforesaid context, I would like to point out that at the very
outset, Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel pressed his submission
mainly on the issue that since as per direction of the Division Bench of this
court in Sajal Deb (supra) the State-respondents had formulated a scheme for
regularization of the petitioners in Sajal Deb (supra), this court may also
direct the State-respondents for formulating a similar scheme for
regularization of the petitioners of the present writ petition.
12. In this respect, I find that the respondents-State has filed an
interlocutory application being numbered as IA 01 of 2022, in connection
with the instant writ petition seeking some time with the plea stating inter alia
at para 2 of the said application that, „..the humble Respondents state that the
matter regarding consideration of regularization of the contract services of
erstwhile RMSA teachers is under active consideration of the Government, In
fact, the proposal mooted from the Education Department on this subject is
under interdepartmental consideration of the Government and finalization
process thereof will take its necessary time'.
13. Keeping in line with the submissions exchanged between learned
counsel of both sides and based on the averments made in the interlocutory
application that the State is looking forward for consideration of the matters of
regularization of the Post Graduate Teachers of erstwhile RMSA i.e. the
petitioners herein, it is directed that the State-respondents may formulate a
scheme similar to Sajal Deb (supra), however, in consultation with the
Central Government since the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan [SmSA] scheme
is primarily a centrally sponsored scheme. The entire exercise shall be
completed within a period of 8(eight) months from the date of receiving a
copy of this judgment.
With the aforesaid observations and discussions, the instant writ
petition stands disposed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed.
JUDGE
sanjay
SANJAY GHOSH Date: 2025.01.21 17:38:02 +05'30'
