Malabika Das vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate appeared for the respondents on advance copy and waived formal notice. Considering the short question arising in the petition the same is taken up for final disposal right away.

[2] The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher in Government schools run by the Tripura State by an order dated 15.07.2010. The selection and appointment of large number of teachers appointed around the same time came to be challenged before the High Court in WP(C) No.51 of 2014 and other connected petitions in case of Tanmoy Nath versus The State of Tripura and others the High Court by its judgment reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731 set aside all selections, however, gave opportunity to the teachers to appear in fresh selection process that would be undertaken for filling up the vacancies in question. If selected and appointed, their past services would be protected.

[3] The petitioner who was previously selected and appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher, appeared in the fresh selection process and was selected and appointed under order dated 29.06.2018 as a Graduate Teacher. However, such fresh appointment was made on a fixed salary basis. This action the petitioner has challenged in the present petition contending that the same is in breach of the decision of the High Court in case of Tanmoy Nath (supra).

[4] In a group of petitions in case of Sangita Reang and others versus State of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.295 of 2019 and connected petitions the High Court had the occasion to examine various aspects revolving around the present issue. The situations were divided in III categories. Category-III was as under:

"29. Coming to Category-III, the teachers who were previously holding a post but are now selected and appointed on the lower post, for obvious the reasons cannot claim seniority benefit or any other benefit of past service except for the limited purpose of leave to their credit, provident fund, pension and gratuity which the Government has already recognized and granted as also for being posted in the regular scale. These teachers had rendered more than 5 years of service since the year 2010 and therefore, had been brought on the regular pay scale in the year 2015 and thereabouts. They now cannot be placed back on fixed salary basis. Firstly, this would be going against the philosophy of counting past service of those teachers, who eventually get regular selection and appointment. Secondly, it would also be incongruent with the decision of the Government to count their past service for the purpose of pension and gratuity. If their past service is counted towards pensionery benefits, it would defy logic that the same should not be counted as a qualifying service for the purpose of being brought over to regular pay scale."

[5] The petitioner falls in category-III. With respect to teachers falling in this category in the decision the High Court had given following directions :

"(iii) In Category-III cases, the petitioners‟ past service would be counted for the limited purpose of retaining their leave credit, provident fund, pension and gratuity and further that they will be placed in the regular scale of pay from the date of their fresh appointment and the pay will be fixed at the minimum of the scale. They would receive all admissible allowances."

[6] Under the circumstances, the respondents shall verify the case of the petitioner and as contended by the petitioner she falls in category-III, the directions issued by the High Court in case of Sangita Reang (supra) would be applied to the petitioner also. The entire exercise may be completed within 3(three) months from today.

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