Juthika Bhattacharya vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner was initially appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 15.06.1977 as stated in the writ petition under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS, in short). In the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that he is similarly circumstanced to the petitioners of the writ petition being WP(C)No.1480 of 2017 [Mira Roy versus State of Tripura and Others]. But the petitioner has not been given any particular of her service. This approach to build the pleading is unacceptable. The writ petitioner is under duty to give the service particulars in the writ petition, even if, it emanates from a lead case.

Be that as it may, it appears that the petitioner was also appointed as the Supervisor (ICDS) on adhoc basis in the scale of pay of Rs.1300-2220/- by the memorandum dated 24.03.1991 along with Nirmalendu Bikash Paul and Others who were later on by the memorandum dated 02.06.2017 were regularized from the date of their engagement as the adhoc Supervisor (ICDS) on adhoc basis. Subsequently, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was reverted to the post wherefrom he was appointed on adhoc basis, by the office order dated 15.05.2001 [Annexure-R/2 of the reply filed by the respondents]. However, by filing the rejoinder, the petitioner has disclosed that the order of reversion was challenged in WP(C)No.312 of 2001 by him. In the said writ petition being WP(C)No.312 of 2001, an interim order was passed on 25.06.2001 [In C.M.Appl.No.259 of 2001] whereby the status of the petitioner as Supervisor (ICDS) was directed to be maintained till the post is filled up on regular basis. What was the outcome of the said writ petition has not been narrated anywhere by the petitioner.

In the circumstances, this court has called for the records of WP(C)No.312 of 2001 [Smt. Juthika Bhattacharjee versus State of Tripura and Another]. It transpires from the records of the said writ petition that on 12.05.2011, the following order was passed by the Gauhati High Court which had the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the cause :

"When the matter is called on, none appears for the petitioner. Even there is no prayer for adjournment. In such a situation, there is no other option before this Court except to dismiss the writ petition for default.

Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is present.

Accordingly, it is dismissed for default.

Interim order, if any stands vacated."

Therefore, the said interim order stood vacated on 12.05.2011.

Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner namely Juthika Bhattacharjee stands on the same plane of those persons who were regularized by virtue of the order dated 02.06.2017 being WP(C)No.1480 of 2017 [Mira Roy versus The State of Tripura and Others, Annexure-6 to the writ petition]. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has quite succinctly submitted that the source and nature of engagement of the petitioner and those persons who were appointed by the memorandum dated 15.02.1991 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition being WP(C)No.1480 of 2017] and the memorandum dated 24.03.1991 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition being WP(C)No.1480 of 2017] cannot be treated differently.

Mr. Deb, learned counsel has further submitted that all those persons in the face of the order of reversion dated 15.05.2001 had approached the Gauhati High Court by filing the respective writ petitions. Those writ petitions were dismissed on merit by the combined judgment dated 02.09.2013 delivered in WP(C)No.33 of 2006 [Nirmalendu Bikash Pal versus State of Tripura and Others].

True it is that by the said judgment, the writ petition of the similar nature was dismissed. However, before parting with the records, the Gauhati High Court had observe at para-11 of the said judgment dated 02.09.2013 in WP(C)No.33 of 2006 as under :

"11. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I find nothing wrong in the memo, dated 31.12.2005 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). It is no doubt a fact that the petitioner has been serving under the department for more than 20 years and at least there is nothing on record that the petitioner could not serve the department effectively. It is left open to the department to consider whether the petitioner may be absorbed in any other post if he cannot be absorbed in the post of Supervisor (ICDS). In case such a prayer is made by the petitioner, since the petitioner has already become over-aged and not eligible for any other public employment, the department may consider such prayer sympathetically with a humane touch."

After that judgment dated 02.09.2013 was delivered in WP(C)No.33 of 2001, the respondents regularized the services of the persons, who were till then continuing as the Supervisor (ICDS) on adhoc basis with effect from the date of their engagement on adhoc basis, by the memorandum dated 02.06.2017. Admittedly, there had been no such observation in the writ petition filed by the petitioner being WP(C)No.312 of 2001.

Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution. Even the writ petition of the other persons who have been regularized later on, was dismissed on merit. As it appears now, on the basis of the said observation and taking a humane consideration, the respondents have regularized the services of the other persons whose names are reflected in the order dated 02.06.2017. The petitioner is also entitled to the equal and compassionate treatment.

Be that as it may, I find sufficient reason in the submission of Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even though, the petitioner's writ petition had been dismissed for non-prosecution, the respondents are directed to adopt similar consideration, inasmuch as the petitioner at the time of engagement was similarly circumstanced vis-a-vis the persons who have been regularized by the memorandum dated 02.06.2017. The respondents shall consider the petitioner similarly and grant the similar benefits, as granted by the memorandum dated 02.06.2017. The entire exercise be completed within a period of six months from the day of receiving a copy of this order.

With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.