Smt. Pinki Sarkar and 8 Others v. The State of Tripura and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_

WP(C) No.408 of 2024

Smt. Pinky Sarkar and others

...... Petitioner(s) V E R S U S

State of Tripura and others ..…. Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate,

Mr. Swarupam Saha, Advocate,

Mr. S. Dey, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH =O=R=D=E=R= 27/06/2024

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the benefit of past service for all purposes including pension, gratuity, leave at credit, pay protection, counting of period for the purpose of determining five years' fixed pay period and for extension of financial benefits in their favour upon grant of such benefit.

[2]

The facts of the case, as pleaded, are as under.

Petitioners have, after taking 'No Objection Certificate' from the competent authority, participated in the recruitment exercise for the post of Graduate Teacher (Secondary Level) while working as a Graduate Teacher (Elementary Level) under the Education Department, Government of Tripura. Thereafter, on being successful, they submitted technical resignation and joined the new post of Graduate Teacher (Secondary Level). They claimed the benefit of past service relying upon certain circular of the Ministry of

Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India dated

17.08.2016 regarding the effect of technical resignation and also decision rendered earlier in case of Sri Dilip Shil and others versus State of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.722 of 2022 and in case of Sri Anup Baul & others versus State of Tripura & others in WP(C) No.141 of 2024. They submitted that their representation (Annexure-60) dated 31.05.2024 is pending before the competent authority i.e. Director of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura, respondent No.2. Therefore, they had to approach this Court for relief. [3]

Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law and grant the aforesaid benefits. He also relies upon the case of Sri Dilip Shil & others versus The State of Tripura & others in WP(C) No.722 of 2022 wherein pursuant to the order dated

17.03.2023 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. D. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-State, submits that the instant petition has been taken up for the first time. Therefore, instructions are awaited. However, since the consideration on this issue at the first instance lies before the competent authority under the department, in case the representation of the petitioners has not been considered on account of genuine reasons, the respondent-department would consider it 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 representation of the petitioners is 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 representation 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

Dipesh SIDDHARTHA LODH Date: 2024.07.02 17:27:48 +05'30'