[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tripura on 2 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.265 of 2022
1. Sri Chira Kumar Jamatia,
Son of Dinesh Kumar Jamatia, resident of Village of
Trishabari, P.O. Moharchara, District Khowai Tripura, aged
about 42 years.
2. Sri Arup Dey,
Son of Late Amulya Dey, resident of Village of Ratiabari, P.O.
Ratiabari, Sub-Division Kumarghat, District-Unakoti Tripura,
aged about 34 years.
3. Sri Rupak Chakraborty,
Son of Late Himangshu Chakraborty, resident of village
Sovapur, P.O. Rabindra Nagar, Sub-Division Sonamura,
District Sepahijala Tripura, aged about 39 years.
4. Smt. Moutusi Marak,
Daughter of Late Binoy Marak, wife of Sri Shyamal Sarma,
resident of Village Thakur Palli, PO Kulai Bazaar, PS Ambassa,
Sub-Division Ambassa, District Dhalai Tripura, PIN 799204,
aged about 40 years.
5. Sri Sujit Ghosh,
Son of Sri Narayan Chandra Ghosh, resident of Village
Chintaram Kobra Para, PO Champaknagar, PS Champaknagar,
Sub-Division Jirania, District West Tripura, PIN 799045, aged
about 42 years.
6. Sri Prabin Kumar Reang,
Son of Sri Mukti Ram Reang, resident of village Subhash
Nagar, PO Anandabazar, PS Kancanpur, Sub-Division
Kanchanpur, District North Tripura, PIN 799271, aged
about 36 years.
7. Smt. Annapurna Debnath,
Daughter of Late Makhan Debnath, wife of Sri Dilip
Bhattacharjee, resident of village Bhowliabasti, PO & PS
Ambassa, Sub-Division Ambassa, District Dhalai Tripura, PIN
799289, aged about 39 years.
8. Smt. Sipra Paul,
Wife of Sri Kanailal Das, resident of village TRTC Para, PO &
PS Amabassa, Sub-Division Ambassa, District Dhalai Tripura,
PIN 799289, aged about 47 years.
9. Sri Sukanta Bikash Barua,
Son of Late Bimal Kanti Barua, resident of village Kanchanpur,
PO & PS Kanchanpur, Sub-Division Kanchanpur, District North
Tripura, PIN 799270, aged about 45 years.
Page 2 of 23
10. Sri Subendu Nath,
Son of Sailesh Nath, resident of village Saraspur, PO & PS
Kadamtala, Sub-Division Dharmanagar, District North Tripura,
PIN 799261, aged about 40 years.
11. Sri Tapash Dhar,
Son of Babul Chandra Dhar, resident of village Mirza, PO
Upendranagar, PS Kakraban, Sub-Division Udaipur, District
Gomati Tripura, PIN 799105, aged about 40 years.
12. Sri Rajesh Debnath,
Son of Late Jitendra Debnath, resident of village Kathalia, PO
Kathalia, PS Jatrapur, Sub-Division Sonamura, District
Sepahijala Tripura, PIN 799132, aged about 38 years.
13. Sri Khokan Chandra Karmakar,
Son of Late Manmohan Karmakar, resident of village & PO
East Nalchar, PS Melaghar, Sub-Division Sonamura, District
Sepahijala Tripura, PIN 799115, aged about 52 years.
14. Sri Parimal Chandra Das,
Son of Late Subal Krishna Das, resident of Village & PO
Bordowal, PS Sonamura, Sub-Division Sonamura, District
Sepahijala Tripura, PIN 799115, aged about 54 years.
......... Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at New
Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO Kunjaban, PS
New Capital Complex, Sub Division Sadar, District West
Tripura.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
3. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
4. The Director,
Department of Elementary Education, Government of Tripura,
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
Page 3 of 23
5. The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (erstwhile Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan),
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
6. The District Project Coordinator,
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, South Tripura, having his office at
Belonia, P.O. Belonia, P.S. Belonia, District South Tripura.
7. The District Project Coordinator,
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Gomati Tripura, having his office at
Udaipur, P.O. Udaipur, P.S. R.K. Pur, District Gomati Tripura.
........ Respondent(s)
WP(C) No.268 of 2022
1. Sri Chayan Kanti Datta,
Son of Kamal Datta, Village of Birchandra Nagar, P.O.
Takmachara, Santir Bazar, District South Tripura, aged about
43 years.
2. Sri Bhulu Sarkar,
Son of Late Monoranjan Sarkar, Village of Amarpur Town,
Near West Bank of Amarsagar, District Gomati Tripura, aged
about 37 years.
3. Sri Kamalesh Datta,
Son of Kajal Datta, Village of Chanban (Sukanta Palli),
Udaipur, District Gomati Tripura, aged about 41 years.
4. Sri Abhijit Dey,
Son of Late Nitai Charan Dey, Village of Sonamura, P.O + P.S.
R.K. Pur, Udaipur, District Gomati Tripura, aged about 43
years.
5. Sri Ajoy Bal,
Son of Haradhan Bal, Village of South Chandrapur, Udaipur,
P.O. South Chandrapur, District Gomati Tripura, aged about
39 years.
......... Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at New
Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO Kunjaban, PS
New Capital Complex, Sub Division Sadar, District West
Tripura.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Page 4 of 23
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
3. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
4. The Director,
Department of Elementary Education, Government of Tripura,
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
5. The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (erstwhile Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan),
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
6. The District Project Coordinator,
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, South Tripura, having his office at
Belonia, P.O. Belonia, P.S. Belonia, District South Tripura.
7. The District Project Coordinator,
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Gomati Tripura, having his office at
Udaipur, P.O. Udaipur, P.S. R.K. Pur, District Gomati Tripura.
........ Respondent(s)
WP(C) No.378 of 2022
1. Smti Hiramati Debbarma,
Wife of Sri Mithun Debbarma, resident of Village of Bisharat
Chow Para, P.O. Samatal Padmabill, District Khowai Tripura.
2. Sri Anitya Kumar Jamatia,
Son of Late Jitendra Kumar Jamatia, resident of Village of
Sambhu Das Para, P.O. Baramaidan, PS Khowai, District
Khowai Tripura.
......... Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at New
Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO Kunjaban, PS
New Capital Complex, Sub Division Sadar, District West
Tripura.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
Page 5 of 23
3. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
4. The Director,
Department of Elementary Education, Government of Tripura,
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
5. The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (erstwhile Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan),
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
........ Respondent(s)
WP(C) No.650 of 2022
Sri Hiramoy Das,
Son of Lt. Sona Chand Das, resident of village Panisagar, P.O.
Panisagar, Sub-Division Panisagar, District North Tripura, PIN
799260, aged about 46 years.
.........Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at New
Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO Kunjaban, PS
New Capital Complex, Sub Division Sadar, District West
Tripura.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
3. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
4. The Director,
Department of Elementary Education, Government of Tripura,
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
Page 6 of 23
5. The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (erstwhile Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan),
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
6. The District Project Coordinator,
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Panisagar and Kadamtala Block,
having his office at Dharmanagar, P.O. Panisagar, P.S.
Panisagar, District North Tripura.
........Respondent(s)
WP(C) No.810 of 2022
1. Sri Rajib Kr. Saha,
Son of Late Mukti Ranjan Saha, resident of village Dhaleswar,
S.K.B. Lane (Mali Para), P.O. Dhaleswar, District West
Tripura, Agartala, aged about 38 years.
2. Sri Bikram Das,
Son of Late Kalidhan Das, resident of village Rajar Bag, P.O.
R.K. Pur, Udaipur, District Gomati Tripura, aged about 41
years.
3. Sri Dilip Debnath,
Son of Late Rathindra Debnath, resident of village Birchandra
Nagar, P.O. Takma Chara, Santir Bazar, District South
Tripura, aged about 43 years.
4. Sri Shyamali Majumdar,
Wife of Raju Sukla Das, resident of village Ampi nagar,
Amarpur, District Gomati Tripura, aged about 39 years.
5. Sri Sushanta Das,
Son of Ratan Kr. Das, resident of village Birchandra Nagar,
P.O. Takma Chara, Santir Bazar, District South Tripura, aged
about 45 years.
......... Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at New
Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO Kunjaban, PS
New Capital Complex, Sub Division Sadar, District West
Tripura.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
Page 7 of 23
3. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
4. The Director,
Department of Elementary Education, Government of Tripura,
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
5. The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (erstwhile Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan),
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
6. The District Project Coordinator,
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, South Tripura, having his office at
Belonia, P.O. Belonia, P.S. Belonia, District South Tripura.
7. The District Project Coordinator,
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Gomati Tripura, having his office at
Udaipur, P.O. Udaipur, P.S. R.K. Pur, District Gomati Tripura.
........ Respondent(s)
WP(C) No.831 of 2022
1. Sri Uttam Kumar Das,
Son of Umesh Das, Village of Chellagong, P.O. Chellagong,
P.S. Nutan Bazar Karbok, District Gomati Tripura, aged about
41 years.
2. Sri Liton Das,
Son of Santosh Das, Village of West Bank of Amarsagar, P.O.
R.K. Pur, P.S. R.K. Pur, District Gomati Tripura, aged about 38
years.
3. Sri Janardhan Das,
Son of Shri Pushpajit Das, resident of Village Rangamati, P.O.
Rangamati, Sub-Division Amarpur, Gomati, Tripura, aged
about 43 years.
......... Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Tripura, having his office at New
Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO Kunjaban, PS
New Capital Complex, Sub Division Sadar, District West
Tripura.
Page 8 of 23
2. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Education Department, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
3. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, having his
office at New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PO
Kunjaban, PS New Capital Complex, Sub-Division Sadar,
District West Tripura.
4. The Director,
Department of Elementary Education, Government of Tripura,
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
5. The State Project Director,
Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (erstwhile Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan),
having its office at Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura.
6. The District Project Coordinator,
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, South Tripura, having his office at
Belonia, P.O. Belonia, P.S. Belonia, District South Tripura.
7. The District Project Coordinator,
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Gomati Tripura, having his office at
Udaipur, P.O. Udaipur, P.S. R.K. Pur, District Gomati Tripura.
........ Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Senior Advocate.
Mr. J. Samed, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Advocate General.
Mrs. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of hearing
and delivery of : 2nd April, 2026
Judgment & order
YES NO
Whether fit for reporting: √
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Common questions of facts and issues being involved in
all the six writ petitions, same are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
[2] The petitioners of WP(C) No.265 of 2022, WP(C) No.378
of 2022, WP(C) No.650 of 2022 and WP(C) No.831 of 2022 were
initially engaged on contract basis, either as Primary or Upper
Primary teachers under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (for short- SSA)
whereas the petitioners of WP(C) No.268 of 2022 were engaged as
Block Resource Persons and the petitioners of WP(C) No.810 of
2022 were engaged as Cluster Resource Persons under SSA. All the
petitioners were engaged under SSA from the year 2004 till
02.06.2015. Thereafter, all the candidates successfully qualified the
STPGT/STGT/Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) examination conducted
by Teachers' Recruitment Board Tripura (for short TRBT) and,
having been offered with appointments as under graduate,
graduate, or post graduate teachers, respectively, they joined to
their said subsequent posts. The names of the petitioners, date of
their initial appointment in SSA and date of their joining to the
subsequent posts are indicated in a tabular chart below:
Sl. No. Name of Date of joining Date of joining as NOC Remarks
Petitioners under SSA GT/PGT/ obtained
UGT
1. Chira Kumar 20.02.2004 GT on 17.01.2020 Yes
Jamatia (Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
2. Arup Dey 30.03.2010 GT on 02.04.2020 Yes
(Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
3. Rupak 09.02.2004 GT on 20.10.2017 Yes
Chakraborty (Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
4. Moutusi Marak 06.01.2011 GT on 30.06.2017 Yes
(Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
5. Sujit Ghosh 01.02.2010 GT on 02.04.2020 Yes
(Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
6. Prabin Kr. 17.03.2011 GT on 04.11.2019 Yes
Reang (Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
[No supporting
document
submitted]
7. Annapurna 25.01.2011 GT on 20.10.2017 Yes
Debnath (Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
8. Sipra Paul 30.01.2010 GT on 24.10.2017 Yes
(Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
9. Sukanta 06.09.2007 UGT on 11.01.2018 Yes
Bikash Barua (Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
10. Subendu Nath 23.12.2009 UGT on 20.10.2017 Yes
(Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
11. Tapash Dhar 31.03.2010 GT on 24.10.2017 Yes
(Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
12. Rajesh 01.02.2010 GT on 30.06.2017 Yes
Debnath (Contract teacher,
Primary school)
13. Khokan 17.11.2008 UGT on 16.11.2017 Yes
Chandra (Contract teacher,
Karmakar Upper primary)
14. Parimal 01.04.2008 GT on 20.10.2017 Yes
Chandra Das (Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
15. Chayan Kanti 19.05.2012 PGT on 22.12.2017 Yes All the
Datta petitioner
16. Bhulu Sarkar 19.05.2012 GT on 24.10.2017 Yes initially joined
17. Kamalesh 19.05.2012 PGT on Yes as Block
Datta 17.05.2017 Resource
18. Abhijit Dey 19.05.2012 PGT on 20.10.2017 Yes Person (BRP)
19. Ajoy Bal 14.05.2005 PGT on 20.10.2017 Yes on contract
basis under
SSA
20. Hiramati 17.06.2009 PGT on 25.02.2019 Yes
Debbarma (Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
21. Anitya Kumar 27.12.2010 PGT on 17.05.2017 No supporting
Jamatia (Contract teacher, - document
submitted
Upper primary)
22. Hiramoy Das 23.12.2009 GT on 20.10.2017 Yes
(Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
23. Rajib Kr. Saha 02.06.2015 GT on 24.10.2017 Yes All the
24. Bikram Das 19.05.2012 GT on 30.06.2017 Yes petitioner
25. Dilip Debnath 19.05.2012 GT on 24.10.2017 Yes joined as
26. Shyamali 15.05.2015 GT on 17.05.2017 Yes Cluster
Majumder Resource
27. Sushanta Das 28.05.2015 GT on 20.10.2017 Yes Person (CRP)
on contract
basis under
SSA
28. Uttam Kumar 31.03.2010 GT on 30.06.2017 Yes
Das (Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
29. Liton Das 29.01.2010 GT on 24.10.2017 Yes
(Contract teacher,
Upper primary)
30. Janardhan 22.11.2007 GT on 24.10.2017 No supporting
Das (Contract teacher, - document
submitted
Upper primary)
[3] It is admitted position that all the petitioners of all the
above said writ petitions were engaged on temporary basis on fixed
pay in SSA. Thereafter, taking no-objection from their Department,
they appeared in the subsequent selection process and being
successful in said recruitment process, they submitted their
technical resignations and then after being released from their
posts in SSA, they joined to their respective new assignments.
However, it appears from the above said chart that some of them
did not complete five years tenure on fixed pay in SSA.
[4] Now, it is the common grievance of all the petitioners,
as revealed from the submissions of Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior
counsel, that after joining the regular service on their subsequent
appointments, they are again placed on the fixed pay regime for
another five years. Thus, 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 along with arrears in their
new assignments from the respective dates of their initial
appointment. In addition to regularization in service, the petitioners
have also prayed for providing them all other admissible benefits
viz. counting their past service for the purpose of pension, gratuity,
leave encashment and all other service benefits. The reliefs as
sought for by the petitioners in WP(C) No.265 of 2022, which is
being treated as the lead case, are reproduced hereunder:
i) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each
one of them, to show cause as to why a Certiorari and/or in
the nature thereof, for directing the respondents, to transmit
the records, appertaining to this writ petition, lying with
them, for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to
the petitioners;
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, for mandating/directing the
respondents, to forthwith accord the benefit of regularization
of service, from the respective dates of their initial
appointments, and thereupon grant regular pay scale, along
with the arrears thereof, and all other admissible benefits,
count their past services, for the purpose of pension,
gratuity, leave encashment and all other benefits, etc. in
favour of the petitioners;
iii) Call for the records appertaining to this petition;
iv) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding;
v) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule
Absolute in terms of ii above.
vi) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may
deem fit and proper.
[5] During the course of argument, Mr. Somik Deb, learned
senior counsel submits that after completion of their 5(five) years
of service in SSA, the petitioners became entitled to get regular pay
scale in terms of a previous judgment of Division Bench of this
Court in WP(C) No. 329 of 2015 [Shri Sajal Deb vs. the State
of Tripura and others] decided analogously with WP(C) No.212
of 2016 [Sri Manoj Kr. Debbarma vs. the State of Tripura and
others] and just for migration to another Department, their right
accrued for such regularization cannot be taken away by the
respondents and therefore, they all are entitled to get benefit of
past services as they applied for the post under subsequent
appointments after taking necessary permission from their previous
employer and also joined in the subsequent appointment after
submitting required technical resignation. Moreover, all the
petitioners after completion of their 5(five) years of service in SSA,
joined to their new posts. Learned senior counsel further submits
that the issue involved in the present batch of writ petitions is
already settled by this Court in case of Mani Kanchan Ghosh vs.
the State of Tripura and others [WP(C) No.52 of 2022
decided analogously with eighteen other writ petitions on
05.11.2025] and in the similar line, the present writ petitions may
also be disposed of. Regarding the petitioners who did not complete
5(five) years of service on fixed pay basis in SSA, learned senior
counsel submits that a scope may be given to them to submit
necessary representation to the appropriate authority in this regard
by adding certain new grounds with respective materials in support
of their such claim, reserving liberty to them to approach the Court
again, if so required.
[6] 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 also 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
to 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 formulated by the State Government, all the petitioners
already joined in 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
in SSA.
[7] 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 deviate from it now.
[8] This Court has given due consideration to the
submissions of both sides and the materials placed in the record. It
appears that the issues involved in this writ petitions are already
covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Mani Kanchan
Ghosh which is relied on by Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior
counsel. In said case also, the writ petitioners were initially
engaged as contract teachers under SSA from 2004 to 2012,
subsequently they qualified the TET examination and joined as
under graduate or graduate or post graduate teachers under
Education Department. It was the claim of those writ petitioners
that as per the judgment passed by this Court in 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 benefits.
The objections raised from the side of State respondents in the
present cases were also similarly raised in those writ petitions.
Finally Court after examining the matter thoroughly, decided the
issues in the following manner:
"[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."
[9] In view of above said previous decision of this Court,
no further discussion appears to be necessary to resolve the issue.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. It is held that the
petitioners who earlier completed their 5(five) years of service in
SSA on fixed pay basis cannot be again put into fixed pay regime
in their subsequent employment. They are therefore entitled to
the benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. the date of their joining in
the subsequent employment. The State-respondents are therefore
directed to grant them the above said benefit of regular pay scale
with all allowances from the date of their joining in their
subsequent employment and the arrears shall be disbursed to
them within 6(six) months of receipt of copy of this judgment in
two phases. 50% of the arrear in the first phase shall be paid
within the first three months. The other petitioners who did not
complete the period of 5(five) years of service in SSA on fixed pay
as indicated earlier, may file necessary representations to the
appropriate authority as stated earlier with their supporting
materials within two months of receipt of copy of this judgment
and the respondent authority shall dispose of the same with a
reasoned order within one month therefrom. In case of any
grievance regarding decision of the appropriate authority on their
such representations, liberty will be there for them to approach
the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
With such observations and directions, 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: 2026.04.10 17:18:48 +05'30'
