Suman Das and Anr v. The State of Tripura and 3 Ors

Order 09/05/2024

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Issue rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the respondents to give the benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioners w.e.f. the date on which the petitioners completed 5 years Govt. service including the period served by the petitioner No.1 as Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 14.12.2016 to 28.11.2017 and the petitioner No.2 as Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 14.12.2016 to 19.07.2017 and thereafter in the post of Post Graduate Teacher on fixed pay basis against the fixed pay posts created keeping in abeyance regular pay scale posts along with ancillary and consequential, pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits.

(ii) Make the rules absolute

(iii) Call for records

(iv) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered fit and proper."

2.

The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the writ petitioners, are referred to hereinafter. Petitioners contended that they initially joined as Graduate Teachers under the Directorate of Elementary Education on

14.12.2016. Thereafter, both of them appeared in the STPGT under TRBT after obtaining No Objection Certificate from the competent authority and they succeeded in the said examination. Technical resignation tendered by them was

accepted and subsequently they joined in the post of Post Graduate Teacher on

29.11.2017 and 20.07.2017 respectively under the Directorate of Secondary Education. They were granted regular scale with effect from 29.11.2022 and

20.07.2022 respectively. It is submitted that the past services rendered by the petitioners as Graduate Teachers w.e.f. 14.12.2016 to 28.11.2017 and w.e.f.

14.12.2016 to 19.07.2017 respectively were not taken into consideration while regularizing their services. It is also submitted that petitioners were granted regular scale w.e.f. 29.11.2022 and 20.07.2022 respectively instead of

14.12.2021 without taking into consideration the past services rendered by the petitioners. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India has also issued an office memorandum dated 17.08.2016 regarding the effect of the technical resignation. The said memo is also adopted in the State of Tripura and it provides that in case of Technical Resignation, the past service of an employee is counted for all purposes. The resignation is treated as technical resignation if the employee has applied through proper channel for a post in the same or some other department and on selection is required to resign from the previous post for administrative reasons. Petitioners contend that similarly situated teachers had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.722/2022 and vide judgment and order dated 17.03.2023, this Court had directed the department to consider their representations. Thereafter, vide memorandum dated 17.12.2023, three writ petitioners have been granted the benefit of past service. According to the petitioners, the instant case is also covered by the judgment and order dated 06.01.2021 passed in WP(C) No.234/2020 and other batch matters wherein this Court extended benefit of

past service to persons appointed to teaching posts from non-teaching posts. The representations made by the petitioners on 15.12.2021 and 30.12.2023 have not yet been acted upon. Therefore, they have approached this Court.

3.

Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law and grant the aforesaid benefits. He also relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Tarendra Reang & others v. The State of Tripura & others in WP(C) No.234 of 2020 and other batch matters wherein pursuant to the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by this Court, those writ petitioners have been granted the benefit of past service. As such, the respondents may be directed to take a decision in accordance with law in respect of the present petitioners also.

4.

Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate for the respondents-State, submits that instructions are awaited in this matter. However, since the consideration on this issue at the first instance lies before the competent authority under the department; in case the representations of the petitioners have not been considered on account of enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, the respondent-department would consider them in accordance with law in a suitable time as may be directed by this Court.

5.

Having regard to the nature of relief sought for by the petitioners, since the representations of the petitioners are pending before the concerned respondent authority, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case deems it proper to direct the competent authority/respondent No.2 to

take a decision upon their representations in accordance with law within a reasonable period preferably within 16(sixteen) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6.

The instant petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ

Pijush/ MUNNA SAHA Date: 2024.05.15 12:03:54 +05'30'

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) No.69 of 2024 Suman Das & another .........Petitioner(s); Versus The State of Tripura & others .........Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate, Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate, Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH