Bimal Das vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

[1] Petitioners have challenged a portion of memorandum dated 24th October, 2017 under which they were offered appointments to the post of Graduate Teacher in Government Schools. They request that they may be placed in the regular pay scales form the date of appointment on the said post.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

All the petitioners were appointed as Graduate Teachers in Government Schools in the year 2012. These appointments were after regular selection process. However, they were granted fixed salary on monthly basis. All the petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Graduate Teachers for which the Government of Tripura had invited applications. The petitioners had made such applications with no objection from the Government. They were selected and by a common memorandum dated 24th October 2017, offered appointment as Graduate Teachers in Government schools. The petitioners accepted the offers of appointment and after tendering technical resignations which were accepted by the department, they joined the post of Graduate Teacher (Science) pursuant to the order of appointment passed by the department on 16th November, 2017. The office memorandum dated 24th October, 2017 contained a condition that the engagement of the petitioners would be on fixed salary. This condition the petitioners have challenged with consequential prayers for being granted regular pay scales.

[3] The Government has filed reply and opposed the prayers principally taking the stand that the petitioners were initially appointed as Graduate Teachers on fixed salary. They were never granted regular pay scales since there were no sanctioned posts in regular scales against which they were appointed. Now that the petitioners are freshly appointed as Graduate Teachers, they cannot claim regular scale of pay.

[4] Learned counsel for the petitioners correctly pointed out that these issues were considered by this Court in case of Tarendra Reang and Ors. Vs. The State of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.234/2020 and connected petitions decided on 6th January, 2021. By this judgment, several petitions were disposed of. Facts of these petitions are similar to WP(C) No.558/2020 filed by one Shri Ashim Goswami which was also decided by the said common judgment. Facts were recorded in the said judgment as under :

"(C) In WP(C) No.558/2020, the sole petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Science) on 29th March, 2012 by the Government after carrying out regular selection process for which advertisement was issued on 25th August, 2010. His initial appointment was on fixed pay basis. According to him, after completion of 5 years service, as per Government policy he ought to have been brought out to regular scale. This has not been done so far. The petitioner's first prayer is, therefore, for grant of regular pay scale w.e.f. 2nd July, 2017 on the post of Assistant Teacher. Pursuant to advertisement dated 2nd March, 2019 for recruitment of Under Graduate Teachers, the petitioner applied. He was selected. He tendered his technical resignation from his erstwhile post which was accepted by the department on 17th March, 2020 and he joined the service as Under Graduate Teacher soon thereafter. His second prayer, therefore, is that his past service as an Assistant Teacher(Science) should be preserved for all purposes."

In this context, the Court had held and observed as under :

"[17] The objection of the Government that the petitioners accepted their appointments with full knowledge and, therefore, they are estopped 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."

[5] The issues are thus squarely covered by the said judgment of this Court in case of Tarendra Reang and Ors.(supra). Consequently, the petition is allowed by directing the respondents to grant regular pay scales to the petitioners from the initial date of engagement as Graduate Teachers(Science) in the year 2017 or from the date they complete 5 years, counting from initial engagement as Graduate Teachers in the year 2012 in case on the date of joining as Graduate Teachers in the year 2017 any of the petitioners had not completed 5 years total service. It is clarified that none of the petitioners would have any claim of seniority in their new engagements because in new organization they cannot carry the seniority of the past service so as to jump over the other existing employees in the cadre. These directions shall be carried out within a period of 6(six) moths from today.

Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.