Tripura High Court

Mani Kanchan Ghosh vs The State Of Tripura on 5 November, 2025

                  HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                         AGARTALA

                        WP(C) No.52 of 2022
     Mani Kanchan Ghosh,
     Son of late Monoranjan Ghosh, resident of Kalagachia, P.O
     Sidhai, Sub Division Mohanpur, West Tripura.
                                             ......... Petitioner(s)
                         -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 Director,
     O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of
     Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin
     799003.
4.   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.
5.   The State Project Director,
     Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government
     of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.
                                           ........ Respondent(s)

Uttam Kumar Goswami, Son of Kiran Chandra Goswami, resident of Village + P.O Amtilla, Kadamtala, Dharmanagar, North Tripura.

.........Petitioner(s)

-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 Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........ Respondent(s)

Ganesh Debbarma, Son of Arun Debbarma, resident of Avanga, Kamalpur, P.O Avanga, District Dhalai, Tripura.

.........Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

.........Respondent(s)

Sanat Debbarma, Son of Lt. Suku Chandra Debbarma, resident of Kala Shati Para, Jirania, P.O Birendra Nagar, District West Tripura, Tripura.

.........Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Suken Sarkar, Son of Lt. Kamal Sarkar, resident of Gainama, Longtharai Valley, P.O. Chailengta, District Dhalai, Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Sushil Chandra Das, Son of late Sashanka Kumar Das, resident of Gouri Sankar Pur, P.O Dasda Bazar, P.S Kanchanpur, Dist. North Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Amrit Lal Das, Son of late Harendra Das, resident of Ram Bhakta Para, P.O Champak Nagar, Sub Division Jirania, West Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Sujit Debnath, Son of Subodh Debnath, resident of Netaji Nagar, Teliamura, P.O Teliamura, District Khowai, Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Rita Nath, Daughter of late Barindra Nath, resident of Laxmipur, Kanchanpur, P.O Dasda Bazar, District North Tripura, Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Amulya Debbarma, Son of late Laxman Debbarma, resident of Gurubhakta Para, Udaipur, P.O Garjee, District Gomati, Tripura, Pin 799125.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Nandan Chakraborty, Son of late Nani Gopal Chakraborty, resident of Nidaya, P.O Nidaya, District Sepahijala, Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Dulal Majumder, Son of late Niranjan Majumder, resident of Sukanta Colony, P.O Nutan Bazar, Amarpur, District Gomati Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Lucky Das, Daughter of Lt. Sudhangshu Das, resident of Kanchanpur, P.O. Kanchanpur, District North Tripura, Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Uggajoy Mog, Son of Late Monsiong Mog, resident of Kachimcherra Village Council, P.O Kulai Bazar, District Dhalai, Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Smt. Tanuja Chakma, Wife of Sri Mridul Chakma, resident of Vill Srirampur, P.O & P.S Kanchanpur, Sub-Division Kanchanpur, North Tripura, PIN 799270.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Rajib Banik, Son of Sri Ranjit Banik, resident of Khowai, P.O. Khowai Court, Sub-Division Khowai, Khowai Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Secondary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

3. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

1. Pranjib Sarkar, Son of Pratul Sarkar, resident of Village West Charakbai, P.O. Charakbai, Sub-Division Santirbazar, District South Tripura, PIN 799142.

2. Ritan Hazaree, Son of Rakhal Hazaree, Village & P.O Karaicherra, Sub Division Kumarghat, District Unakoti Tripura, PIN 799263.

......... Petitioner(s)

-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 Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Agartala, Pin 799003.

4. 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.

5. The State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, Office of the School Education Department, Govt. of Tripura, Shiksha Bhavan, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Sanjib Das, Son of Sri Haripada Das, resident of Manughat, P.O. Manu, Sub Division Longtharai Valley, Dhalai, Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary 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 Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

Satan Deb, Son of late Rakesh Deb, resident of East Masli, P.O Masli Bazar, P.S. Manu, Sub Division Longtharai Valley, Dhalai, Tripura.

......... Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

2. The Director, O/O the Directorate of Elementary 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 Siksha Abhiyan, Tripura Rajya Mission, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, District West Tripura, PIN 799001.

........Respondent(s)

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Senior Advocate.

Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Advocate General.

Mr. P. Gautam, Senior G.A. Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate.

Mrs. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.

Date of hearing         :      4th September, 2025.
Date of delivery of     :      5th November, 2025.
Judgment & order
                               YES     NO
Whether fit for reporting:      √

HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA JUDGMENT & ORDER

The identical nature of facts and common questions of

law are being involved, all the writ petitions were heard together

and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

[2] All the petitioners were initially engaged as contract

teachers under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (for short- SSA) from the

year 2004 till 16.11.2012, either as Upper Primary or Post

Graduate teachers. All of them thereafter qualified the TET

examination and being offered with the offer of appointment either

as under graduate or as graduate or post graduate teachers joined

in their new employment on different dates as indicated in the

below noted tabular chart:

Sl. Name of the Date of joining Date of joining as Remarks, if No. petitioner(s) and case as SSA teacher GT/PGT/UGT any number

1. Mani Kanchan Ghosh 10.06.2004 22.11.2017 (GT) [WP(C) 52 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

2. Uttam Kumar Goswami 10.06.2004 01.09.2017 (GT) [WP(C) 53 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

3. Ganesh Debbarma 09.07.2011 18.03.2020 (GT) [WP(C) 54 of 200] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

4. Sanat Debbarma 01.01.2009 18.03.2020 (GT) [WP(C) 55 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

5. Suken Sarkar 02.02.2010 21.12.2017 (GT) [WP(C) 56 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

6. Sushil Chandra Das 01.03.2004 19.03.2020 (GT) [WP(C) 57 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

7. Amrit Lal Das 01.03.2004 18.11.2017 (PGT) [WP(C) 58 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

8. Sujit Debnath 01.03.2004 30.12.2017 (GT) [WP(C) 59 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

9. Rita Nath 10.09.2010 06.01.2021 (GT) [WP(C) 60 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

10. Amulya Debbarma 01.01.2009 18.03.2020 (GT) [WP(C) 61 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

11. Nandan Chakraborty 01.03.2004 29.12.2017 (UGT) [WP(C) 62 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

12. Dulal Majumder 05.02.2010 20.03.2020 (GT) [WP(C) 63 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

13. Lucky Das 27.01.2010 17.11.2017 (GT) [WP(C) 64 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

14. Uggajoy Mog 01.02.2010 18.03.2020 (GT) [WP(C) 65 of 2022] Contract Teacher

(Upper Primary)

15. Tanuja Chakma 27.01.2010 18.03.2020 (GT) [WP(C) 99 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

16. Rajib Banik 16.04.2008 03.11.2018 (GT) [WP(C) 451 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

17. Pranjib Sarkar and Ritan Pranjib Sarkar- 28.06.2021 (GT) Both the Hazaree 25.01.2011 petitioners [WP(C) 955 of 2022] (PGT, contract joined as basis, RMSA) GT on 28.06.2021 Ritan Hazaree-

16.11.2012 (PGT, contract basis, RMSA)

18. Sanjib Das 01.02.2010 27.12.2017 (GT) [WP(C) 956 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

19. Satan Deb 02.02.2010 27.12.2017 (UGT) [WP(C) 957 of 2022] Contract Teacher (Upper Primary)

[3] For convenience of reference, case No.WP(C) 52 of 2022

is treated as the lead case. The offer of appointment of the

petitioner of the lead case indicates that such offer was issued for a

temporary post of graduate teacher on fixed pay basis @

Rs.17,925/- per month being 75% of the basic pay (Level-9 of

Tripura State Pay Matrix, 2017). It is the case of the petitioners

that they were given offer of appointment against the sanctioned

post. In this regard, one memorandum dated 22.12.2017

(Annexure 7 of the lead case) is relied on which shows that said

memorandum was issued by the Directorate of Secondary

Education, Government of Tripura noting that 456 number of

persons were given offer of appointment against the posts of

graduate teacher on fixed pay basis with a fixed salary of 75% of

their basic pay of a graduate teacher, for a period of one year and

they were accomodated against 1462 posts of graduate teachers

created vide Education (School) Department, Tripura under Memo

No.F.8(1-33)-SE/E/PLAN/2009(1) dated 09.08.2010.

[4] Earlier, one Sajal Deb and another Manoj Kr. Debbarma

filed two separate writ petitions bearing No. WP(C) 329 of 2015

[Shri Sajal Deb vs. the State of Tripura and others] and

WP(C) No.212 of 2016 [Sri Manoj Kr. Debbarma vs. the

State of Tripura and others]. They were engaged as SSA

teachers on fixed remuneration on contract basis in SSA. Seeking

regular pay scale and their regularization in the service, they filed

those two writ petitions. Both the cases were heard by a Division

Bench of this Court and were disposed of by common judgment

dated 23.02.2021, inter alia, in the following terms:

"53. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioners must receive the remuneration in regular scale of pay assigned to then primary/upper primary Government teachers. The State Government also has a policy of initial appointment of a teacher on fixed pay basis for a period of 5 years. The same rule can be applied in the present case also. In case of all the petitioners thus from the date of the petitions or upon completion of 5 years of service whichever is later, they shall be placed in regular corresponding scales of pay for the Government teachers. However, this pay fixation would be for a notional purpose from the appropriate date till the date of this judgment, of course with notional release of increments as per the rules. Actual difference in salary would be paid effective from the date of this judgment.

54. The petitioners would have a right to be regularised after 10 years of continuous and uninterrupted engagement from initial appointment. It would be up to the Government to consider them for regularisation either in existing vacant posts of Government teachers or to sanction new posts as SSA teachers by creating such cadre if so advised. It would be open for the Government to frame a scheme providing for further terms and conditions on which such regularisation shall be done. However, any such scheme shall contain a clause that the service upon completion of

5 years from initial engagement or the date of filing the petition whichever is later, (when as per this judgment

the petitioners would notionally start receiving pay in regular scales) till date of regularisation, the services rendered by the petitioners shall count towards their pensionary benefits.

55. We are conscious of the legal issues concerning regular teachers in the Government schools which is a fall out of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Tanmoy Nath and others vrs. State of Tripura and others reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731, where as per further orders passed by the Supreme Court, all those teachers who were terminated on account of the judgment of the High Court, would have a right to compete for fresh selections with age relaxation granted to them up to 31.03.2023. We have, therefore, left for the Government to regularize these petitioners either against the existing posts or on new posts which may be sanctioned.

56. These directions shall be carried out within a period of six months from today.

57. As noted in WP(C) No.329 of 2015 petitioners espouse the cause of the class of teachers through the association. In any case, the nature of disputes and our consideration are for the entire cadre. This judgment, therefore, shall act as a judgment in rem and will apply to all similarly situated SSA teachers without any of them having to approach the Court separately."

At Para 57 of the said judgment it was also clarified that

said judgment would act as a judgment in rem and would apply to

all similarly situated SSA teachers without any of them having

approached the Court separately.

[5] Now, it is the claim of the petitioners that as per the

judgment passed by this Court in above said Sajal Deb's case,

they were entitled to get regular pay scale on completion of 5 (five)

years of their services as SSA teachers with notional fixation till the

date of the said judgment i.e. upto 23.02.2021 and thereafter they

would be entitled to get actual financial benefit. In the present

batch of writ petitions, two petitioners i.e. petitioners of WP(C)

No.955 of 2022 only joined as graduate teacher on 28.06.2021 i.e.

after pronouncement of judgment of Sajal Deb's case and all

other petitioners joined in their subsequent service before said

judgment was passed.

[6] Now, the common grievances of all the petitioner are

that after joining the regular service on their subsequent

appointment, they are again placed on the fixed pay regime though

all of them appeared in the TET examination after taking

permission from their previous employer and on being offered with

the subsequent job, they submitted their technical resignation in

their previous job and only on acceptance of the same, they joined

the subsequent employment. In this premise, now they have filed

the present writ petitions for a direction to the respondents to give

them the benefit of regular pay scale on completion of their 5(five)

years of service as SSA teacher and also regular pay scale in their

new assignment.

[7] According to the respondents, as per their affidavit in

opposition submitted in the lead case, the judgment of Sajal Deb's

case was applicable and specifically was limited to only those

contractual teachers who were under the roll of SSA and therefore,

same cannot be applied in case of the present petitioners who are

no longer in the existing contractual service as SSA teacher. It is

also stated by them that in compliance of the judgment of Sajal

Deb's case, the Director of Elementary Education vide

Memorandum dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure 13) already regularized

39 (thirty nine) T-TET II qualified SSA upper-primary contract

teachers as graduate teachers at elementary level after notifying

the scheme of regularization dated 30.09.2021 and the SSA

teachers who already completed 5(five) years of service under SSA,

were also granted regular pay scale with notional fixation in terms

of said judgment.

[8] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel also submits

that as per judgment of Sajal Deb's case, which already reached

finality being not challenged by the State, after completion of their

5(five) years of service as SSA teachers, the petitioners became

entitled to get regular pay scale and just for migration to another

Department, their right accrued under Sajal Deb's case cannot be

taken away by the respondents and they all are entitled to get

benefit of past service as they applied for the post under

subsequent appointment after taking necessary permission from

their previous employer and also joined in the subsequent

appointment after submitting required technical resignation and

moreover, all the petitioners after completion of their 5(five) years

of service in SSA, joined in their new posts. Therefore, according to

Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, the petitioners cannot be

treated as fixed pay employee again by taking away their right to

regular pay scale already accrued as SSA teachers.

[9] Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Advocate General, on the

other hand, submits that the petitioners are selected by Teachers'

Recruitment Board, Tripura (for short TRBT) and they are now

employee of the State Government and not employed further under

any scheme like SSA and therefore, the benefits accrued under

Sajal Deb's case cannot be applied in their cases, for, they are no

longer in service under any such scheme. Learned Advocate

General further submits that after the new appointments of the

petitioners, there are now sea changes in between the two

employments and that prior to the pronouncement of judgment of

Sajal Deb's case on 23.02.2021, all the petitioners already joined

their new posts. Learned Advocate General also contends that said

judgment of Sajal Deb was to be implemented only through a

scheme framed by the State Government and when the scheme

was framed by the State Government, all the petitioners already

joined their subsequent employment and there was no direction in

Sajal Deb's case that such benefits should have to be extended to

other persons who had already left their employment under SSA.

[10] Learned Advocate General also argues that past service

under Rule 26(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 can only be counted

when the pension Rules are applicable in both the jobs, and not

otherwise. The last point as raised by learned Advocate General is

that all the petitioners consciously accepted the terms and

conditions of their subsequent appointments and therefore, they

cannot resile from it now. Learned Advocate General also relies on

a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of

Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of

India and another vs. Magi H Desai, 2023 Legal Eagle 315.

[11] This Court has given due consideration to the

submissions of both sides and the materials placed in the record.

[12] In WP(C) No.451 of 2022, by an additional affidavit, the

petitioner of said case has placed on record one memorandum

dated 17.12.2024 issued by the Finance Department whereby the

Finance Department has issued the guidelines for providing the

benefit of regular pay scale to the employees recruited on fixed pay

basis in different posts in different Departments by keeping regular

pay scale posts in abeyance and who have continued to serve the

State for 5(five) years on fixed pay in the same post without any

break in service, on fulfilment of the following conditions:

i) Employees who have been recruited in all the posts against the fixed pay posts created on fixed pay basis by keeping abeyance the regular scale posts.

ii) Employees should have obtained „No Objection Certificate‟ from concerned department before appearing for the Selection Test for all the subsequent post(s) after first job.

iii) Employees who have joined the present posts without any break in service between two subsequent posts.

[13] This memorandum has been issued in modification of

earlier memorandum No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/05/Part-I dated

16.10.2007, by taking a policy decision for considering the benefit

of regular pay scale to the employees who have served the State

Government for cumulative period of 5(five) years against fixed

pay posts created on fixed pay basis keeping regular pay scale

post in abeyance. Therefore, said memorandum cannot strictly be

applied in the cases in hand. However, it is also submitted from the

side of the petitioners that despite the fact that maximum numbers

of petitioners have already completed 5(five) years of service in

their new employment, they have not yet been provided the

regular pay scale.

[14] In all these writ petitions, the issue involved as per

pleadings of the petitioners is whether the benefit of past service as

rendered by the petitioners in SSA can be counted for providing

regular pay scale to the petitioners in their subsequent service. It is

fact that the decision of Sajal Deb's case remained unchallenged

by the State and therefore, said decision is binding on them. At

Para 53 of the said judgment as quoted earlier, it was categorically

held that all the teachers under SSA were entitled to regular pay

scale on completion of their 5(five) years of service in SSA and only

restriction regarding providing of such pay scale was that actual

financial benefit would be extended only from the date of said

judgment i.e. from 23.02.2021 and notional fixation should be done

for the period computing from the date when each of the SSA

teacher have completed 5(five) years of service. Therefore, there is

no dispute that in the matter of providing the benefit of regular pay

scale, such benefit was given with retrospective effect.

[15] The chart containing individual particulars of each of the

petitioners show that before they have joined to the subsequent

service, all of them had already completed 5(five) years of their

service in SSA and therefore, before joining to the new posts,

already they accrued the right of getting regular pay scale in SSA,

may be through notional fixation. Thus, the right which is already

accrued to the petitioners by virtue of said judgment of Sajal

Deb's case cannot be taken away now just because they

themselves have migrated to another department joining to the

regular sanctioned posts treating the same to be a better

employment. In the light of the direction as contained in Para 53 of

Sajal Deb's case, the respondents were/are under obligation to go

for notional fixation of the pay of the present petitioners in SSA on

completion of their 5(five) years of service there and the

consequence of such notional fixation would lead to irresistible

conclusion that when the petitioners joined to their subsequent

service, already they were enjoying regular pay scale as SSA

teachers (though notionally) and thereafter they were again put

into fixed pay regime in their subsequent employment.

[16] Almost similar issue is already dealt with by this Court

by a Coordinate Bench in case of Tarendra Reang and others vs.

The State of Tripura and others [WP(C) No.234 of 2020]

decided on 06.01.2021 along with four other writ petitions. In all

those cases, the petitioners were though having common relief of

addition of past service but on factual contexts there were certain

distinctions which are noted hereunder:

i) In first case [WP(C) no.234 of 2020], out of three

petitioners, one petitioner was appointed as wireless operator and on

competition of training he was granted regular scale. Two other

petitioners initially joined as lower division clerk and panchayat

secretary on fixed pay basis and after completion of 05 years of

service, they were granted regular pay scale. After taking no

objection from their respective authorities and giving technical

resignations, they thereafter joined as government teacher and they

were again placed on fixed pay salary.

ii) In one case i.e. WP(C) no.236 of 2020, the petitioner was

appointed as an Inspector on regular pay scale and when thereafter

she joined as Graduate Teacher after taking no objection from her

employer, she was placed in fixed salary category.

iii) In WP(C) 558 of 2020, the petitioner was initially

appointed as Assistant Teacher (Science) on fixed pay basis but after

05 years of service, regular pay scale was not provided and thereafter

on his subsequent appointment as Under Graduate Teacher, he

prayed for protection of his past service.

iv) In another case i.e. WP(C) No.450 of 2020, all the

petitioners worked earlier as Assistant Teacher (Science) on fixed pay

basis but on completion of 05 years they were not provided with

regular pay scale. Subsequently, when they joined the post of

Graduate Teachers taking 'no objection' from their department and

giving technical resignation, they were again placed on fixed pay rule.

(v) In last case i.e. WP(C) No.780 of 2020, the petitioner

worked as Assistant Teacher (Science) on fixed pay basis but on

completion he was not provided regular pay scale. Thereafter

obtaining 'no objection' from his department and giving technical

resignation, he joined as post graduate teacher where he was again

placed under fixed pay.

[17] The High Court in the above said cases, taking into

consideration the ratio laid down by this Court in Snehangshu Das

and others vs. State of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.89 of

2020 and other different Central Government instructions and also

the provision of Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules finally held as

follows:

"[15] From the above discussion it can be seen that interdepartmental migration of the employees is not discouraged, be it the Government of India or the State Government. Specifically Rule 26(2) of CCS(Pension) Rules protects the past service of an employee of the Government even after his technical resignation and joining new post. Though this is limited for the purpose of pensionary benefits of an employee, it is impossible to protect the pension without protecting his pay.

[16] The incongruity of the situation that may be brought about if the Government‟s stand is accepted would be that full time Government servants who have after rendering service for 5 years on fixed salary basis are brought over to regular scale, once again would be placed at the bottom of salary structure and would be asked to render service for 5 years on fixed salary which is a meagre 65 or 75% of entry scale of the equivalent post without benefit of any other allowances. By protecting their past service for the purpose of pay and allowances even the Government purpose of cost cutting would not be frustrated because these employees would be vacating their regular posts which when filled up the Government will be offered on fixed salary basis. Thus this interdepartmental migration would only bring about change of the head from which the petitioners would be drawing their salaries and there would be no additional outflow from the Government exchequer.

[17] The objection of the Government that the petitioners accepted their appointments with full knowledge and, therefore, they are stopped from raising their grievances is possible of the summery disposal. Neither the recruitment rules nor the advertisement nor the offer of appointment can override the service rules, regulations and statutory provisions. Even if the advertisement provided that an appointee shall be placed under fixed pay for a period of 5 years, never clarified that even if the rules and regulations so provide, the past service of a job aspirant who has been a Government servant already for over 5 years would be wiped out, nor could it have been so prescribed.

[18] Under the circumstances, all the petitions are allowed. In cases where the petitioners were already enjoying pay fixations in regular scales, their entire past service shall be protected for the purpose of pay and allowances including leave encashment and post-retiral benefits as per their appointments in new posts. Where the petitioners have not been granted regular pay scales even after completion of 5 years of service, they would be first brought over to regular pay scale from due dates. Upon their fresh engagements as Teachers, their past

service similarly shall be protected. It is, however, clarified that none of the petitioners would have any claim of seniority in their new engagements because in the new organization they cannot carry the seniority of the past service so as to jump over the other existing employees in the cadre.

Entire exercises of pay fixation and payment of arrears shall be completed within 6(six) months from today. Petition disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."

The benefit of past services in these cases was

thus provided to all the petitioners in this way.

[18] At Para 06 of above said Tarendra Reang's case, it

was categorically observed that the formula of engaging employees

in Group C and Group D posts for initial period of 5(five) years on

fixed pay salary was a device adopted by the State Government,

principally by way of cost cutting exercise and from time to time

resolutions were passed under which, by keeping the regular post

in abeyance for a period of 5(five) years, temporary arrangements

were made on fixed pay basis, preceded by regular selection

process and against regular post. These resolutions provided that

upon completion of continuous 5(five) years of service, the persons

who were engaged on fixed pay basis would be brought to regular

scales of pay and benefit of past service was also recognized for the

purpose of pension and other benefits. The Bench further held that

the formula of engaging Group C and Group D staff on fixed salary

basis was merely a device to enable the Government to reduce its

salary burden for a temporary period. The nature of grievances

both in Tarendra Reang's case and the present cases are similar

except with the distinction in the factual context that in the present

cases in hand, all the petitioners were engaged on contract basis in

SSA and not on regular basis but they all were put into regular pay

scale by virtue of judicial pronouncement.

[19] In Sajal Deb's case, the State also took one of the

defence that SSA teachers were engaged under a scheme framed

by the Central Government and not against any sanctioned post.

While dealing with this point the Court observed that the SSA

teachers were entrusted with the same educational responsibilities,

teaching in the same school to the same students for the same

amount of time like regular Government teachers and they also

held the same qualification and finally it was decided that they

were also entitled to receive the remuneration in regular scale of

pay assigned to the primary/upper primary teachers and that they

had also a right to be regularized after ten years of continuous and

uninterrupted engagement from initial appointment through a

scheme to be framed by the State.

[20] In view of above said factual background and some sort

of distinctions with the facts of Tarendra Reang's case, the

matter is now required to be viewed from a different angel. When a

person becomes entitled to a regular pay scale after serving on

fixed pay for continuous 05 years (though on contract basis), just

because he enters in a subsequent job under the same

Government, will it be justified for the State to put him again within

the region of fixed pay or consolidate pay, only because he has

accepted the offer of appointment containing such term of payment

of salary on fixed pay basis, especially when his appointment is

against a sanctioned post and he has been appointed through due

selection process. Already the State has kept the SSA teachers like

the petitioners under fixed pay term for initial five years. Putting

these persons again on fixed pay regime would certainly be

unreasonable, harsh and exploitative and therefore arbitrary in

nature, more particularly when they have been appointed against

sanctioned posts through due selection process and they also

possess requisite qualifications and are discharging similar duties

like other regular employees.

[21] In State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC

148, Hon'ble Supreme Court observes that it is fallacious to

determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An

employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than

another who performs the same duties and responsibilities.

Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being

demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity.

Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so

voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at

the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost of his self-worth,

and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependants

would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any

act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situated

constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a

domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive,

suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.

[22] Even, Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 also

protects the past service of a Govt. employee on resignation in the

following manner when such resignation is merely a technical

resignation to join a new appointment-

26. Forfeiture of service on resignation-

(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing authority, entails forfeiture of past service. (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.

(3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub- rule (2) due to the two appointments being at different stations, not exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to the Government on the date of relief or by formal condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered by leave due to him.

(4) The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely:-

(i) that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation;

(ii) that during the period of intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper;

(iii) that the period of absence from duty between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date on which the person is allowed to resume duty as a result of permission to withdraw the resignation is not more than 90 days;

(iv) that the post, which was vacated by the Government servant on the acceptance of his resignation or any other comparable post, is available.

(5) Request for withdrawal of a resignation shall not be accepted by the appointing authority where a Government servant resigns his service or post with a view to taking up an appointment in or under a private commercial company or including or a composition or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or in or under a body controlled or financed by the Government.

(6) When an order is passed by the appointing authority allowing a person to withdraw his resignation and to resume duty, the order shall be deemed to include the condonation of interruption in service but the period of interruption shall not count as qualifying service.

[23] Though learned Advocate General argues that the

entire judgment of Sajal Deb's case has to be implemented only

through a scheme and when the scheme was framed by the State,

already the petitioners had left for their new job, but such

submission cannot be accepted for the reason that such direction

to frame the scheme in said case, was only for the purpose of

regularization of SSA teachers as contained in paragraph no.54 of

the said judgment and not regarding granting of regular pay scale

to them. Learned Advocate General also raises the point that there

was no direction in the said judgment for giving benefit of past

service in case any SSA teacher subsequently joins to another

service. Such submission is also not acceptable as there was no

such issue raised in that case [Sajal Deb's case]. In the instant

cases, the past services of the present petitioners are being taken

into consideration only for the purpose of examining whether the

State can be allowed to put a person again and again in the fixed

pay regime just because he has chosen, as per his own

estimation, a better employment subsequently.

[24] When a person has been appointed against a

sanctioned post through a due selection process and the person so

appointed possesses requisite qualification for the same and is

also discharging similar duties like other regular employee, there

is no reason to deny him the fruit of his labour by paying him less

amount of remuneration, more particularly when he has already

gone through such cost cutting phase introduced by the

government for continuous 05 years under sufferance getting less

salary in his previous employment. Putting him again under fixed

pay regime will not only be irrational but also exploitative and

arbitrary. Therefore, all the petitioners are entitled to get regular

pay scale in the present employment with all ancillary benefits

attached with that scale.

[25] Though, it is argued from the side of respondents that

the petitioners have consciously accepted the terms and

conditions of their new appointments including the condition of

remaining on fixed pay for further five years and therefore, they

cannot grieve against it. In the regard, it is to be kept in mind that

in the era of serious unemployment issue and scarcity of

government jobs, the unemployed people are in a position of

unequal bargaining power with the State. For collecting minimum

basic needs for him and his dependents, an employment seeker

has no option but to accept such terms unless there is any other

better alternative available to him. In Jagjit Singh's case also,

Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of that situation and expressed

that such a person does so to provide food and shelter to his

family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity.

[26] Even, earlier long ago, Hon'ble Apex Court in case of

Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and

another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another, (1986) 3 SCC

156 held that in case of unequal bargaining power, court should

strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract. The relevant

paragraph No.89 of the said decision is also extracted hereunder:

"89..........The principle is that the courts will not enforce and will, when called up to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. it is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains of this type. No court can visualize the different situations which can arise in the affairs of men. One can only attempt to give some illustrations. For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconsciousable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties is equal or almost equal. this principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction......."

[27] In case of Karnataka State Private College Stop-

gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka and others,

(1992) 2 SCC 29, the Apex Court held that irrespective of

whether the appointments are temporary or permanent, there

cannot be any justification to pay less salary to a temporary

employee than the regular employee when the nature of works

are same, and method of payment of fixed salary less than the

regular employee (herein teacher) adopting a different method

was deprecated. The relevant paragraph of said judgment

reads thus:

"5. Another obnoxious part is the emoluments that have been paid to the temporary teachers. The order provides that the teacher shall be paid a fixed salary which is ten rupees less than the minimum payable to regular employee. This method of payment is again beyond comprehension. An appointment may be temporary or permanent but the nature of work being same and the temporary appointment may be due to exigency of service, non-availability of permanent vacancy or as stopgap arrangement till the regular selection is completed, yet there can be no justification for paying a teacher, so appointed, a fixed salary by adopting a different method of payment than a regular teacher. Fixation of such emoluments is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The evil inherent in it is that apart from the teachers being at the beck and call of the management are in danger of being exploited as has been done by the management committees of State of Karnataka who utilised the services of these teachers for 8 to 10 years by paying a meagre salary when probably during this period if they would have been paid according to the salary payable to a regular teacher they would have been getting much more. Payment of nearly eight months' salary, by resorting to clause 5, and, that too fixed amount, for the same job which is performed by regular teachers is unfair and unjust. A temporary or ad hoc employee may not have a claim to become permanent without facing selection or being absorbed in accordance with rules but no discrimination can be made for same job on basis of method of recruitment. Such injustice is abhorrent to the constitutional scheme."

[28] Learned Advocate General relies on a decision as

rendered in Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti

Corporation of India (Supra). In this case, the Apex Court

referring to rules 13 and 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules held that

qualifying service of a Govt. employee shall commence from the

date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed, may

be on officiating or temporary basis but casual or contractual

service cannot be treated to service rendered on substantive post.

Said decision was rendered in different contexts.

[29] Rule 17 of the Pension Rules which is an exception to

said rule 13, deals with counting of past service rendered on

contract basis where option is given to a contractual employee

either to retain government contribution received in his

contributory provident fund, or to forego it. In case, any

contractual employee foregoes it, his past service on contractual

basis is counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Recently,

in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash and others vs. Union of India

and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 973, where the appellants

were appointed as Data Entry Operators under a scheme on

temporary and contractual basis and later on were regularised in

their service, the Apex Court held that their past services should be

counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits on their exercise of

option in this regard. According to Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior

counsel submits, as SSA teachers, the petitioners were earlier

enjoying non-contributory provident fund.

[30] The petitioners in this batch of writ petition have also

made another prayer for a direction to the respondents to activate

their GPF account, by accepting their monthly contribution till their

retirement from service.

[31] The issues relating to GPF are regulated by the

provisions of General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules,

1960 which has been made applicable in Tripura with effect from

01.04.1960 by issuing a memorandum by the State. According to

Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel though all the petitioners

were subscribers of GPF (non-contributory) while serving under

SSA, after they were appointed in their subsequent employment,

their GPF account has not been activated by the respondents yet.

He also relies on the provisions of rule 35 of said Rules which is

extracted hereunder:

35. Procedure on transfer of a Government servant from one Department to another-

(a) If a Government servant who is a subscriber to any other non-Contributory Provident Fund of the Central Government or of a State Government is permanently transferred to pensionable service in a Department of the Central Government in which he is governed by these rules, the amount of subscriptions, together with interest thereon, standing to his credit in such other fund on the date of transfer shall be transferred to his credit in the Fund:

Provided that where a subscriber was subscribing to a non-Contributory Provident Fund of a State Government, the consent of that Government shall be obtained.

(b) If a Government servant who is a subscriber to the State Railways Provident Fund or any other Contributory Provident Fund of the Central Government or a State Contributory Provident Fund is permanently transferred to pensionable service in a Department of Central Government in which he is governed by these rules and unless such a subscriber elects to continue to be governed by the rules of such Fund, when such an option is given-

(i) the amount of subscriptions with interest thereon, standing to his credit in such Contributory Provident Fund on the date of transfer shall with the consent of the other Government, if any, be transferred to his credit in the Fund;

(ii) the amount of Government contributions, with interest thereon, standing to his credit in such Contributory Provident Fund shall, with the consent of the other Government, if any, be credited to the Central Revenues (Civil); and

(iii) he shall thereupon be entitled to count towards pension, service rendered prior to the date of

permanent transfer, to the extent permissible under the relevant Pension Rules.

NOTE 1.-The provisions of this rule do not apply to a subscriber who has retired from service and is subsequently re-employed with or without a break in service, or to a subscriber who was holding the former appointment on contract.

NOTE 2.-The provisions of this rule shall, however, apply to persons who are appointed without break, whether temporarily or permanently to a post carrying the benefits of these rules after resignation or retrenchment from service under another Department of Central Government or under the State Government."

[32] By a notification issued in the month of January, 2019

by the Finance Department, the State Govt. has implemented

National Pension Scheme in Tripura w.e.f. 01.07.2018. On the

other hand, in terms of above said provisions of rule 35 of the GPF

(Central Services) Rules, 1960, where the petitioners have been

migrated or transferred to the pensionable services, the amount of

such provident fund with interests lying in their credit in relation

to their previous service, are required to be transferred to their

new account by activating the same, and in other cases, such

amount is required to be disbursed to them. Therefore, the

respondents will examine the case of each of the petitioners and

will take necessary steps in this regard in accordance with

relevant provisions of law and rules.

[33] In view of above discussions, all the writ petitions are

allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the

benefit of regular pay scale with all allowances with effect from

the date of their joining in the subsequent employment and the

arrears shall be disbursed to them within 06 (six) months of

receipt of copy of this judgment in two phases. 50% of the arrear

in the first phase shall be paid within first three months. The

respondents will also examine the case of each of the petitioners

regarding transfer or disbursement of the amount lying in their

provident fund account in terms of the discussions made in

paragraph Nos. 31 and 32 above. Such exercise shall also be

completed within three months of receipt of copy of this

judgment.

With such terms and conditions, the writ petitions are

disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

JUDGE

Rudradeep RUDRADEEP BANERJEE Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP BANERJEE Date: 2025.11.06 16:08:35 +05'30'