Mira Roy vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.

[2] Even though the writ petition has been tagged with WP(C)No.518 of 2019 but on consideration of facts adverted therein, this court finds that the fact averred in this writ petition is entirely different. As consequence of this court, this court has de-tagged this matter and taken for disposal separately. The facts which are not in dispute are that the respondents initially appointed the writ petitioner as the Anganwadi worker by the memorandum dated 15.06.1977 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Thereafter by memorandum dated 24.03.1991 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the petitioner was appointed as the Supervisor (ICDS) on Adhoc basis in the scale of pay of Rs.1300-3220/- with other admissible allowances for a period of 12 months.

[3] Later on, the petitioner was directly recruited as the Social Education Worker, re-designated subsequently as Junior Social Education Organiser by the memorandum dated 30.10.1995 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 19.07.1994 as delivered in Title Appeals No.15,16,17 of 1992 by the District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, as he then was, in the said memorandum dated 30.10.1995, it has been observed that the petitioner will be entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.240-440/- (pay revised) w.e.f. 13.07.1981, the date on which her junior was appointed to the post of Social Education Worker. Thereafter, she will be entitled to the corresponding revised scale of pay of Rs.430-850/- w.e.f. 01.01.1982 and Rs.970-2400/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 till 02.04.1991. However, it has been also clarified that the fixation benefit as Supervisor (ICDS) w.e.f. 03.04.1991 in scale of pay of Rs.1300-3220/- as per ROP, 1988 would be entitled to the petitioner for her adhoc appointment to that post.

[4] It has been categorically stated that the fixation and regulation of pay for the period from 13.07.1981 to 29.10.1995 will be notional. No cash benefit shall be given upto 29.10.1995. The said memorandum has been worded in such manner that it would appear that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of the Supervisor (ICDS) has emanated from her appointment as the Social Education Worker, re-designated as Junior Social Education Organiser. Further, by the memorandum dated 29.06.1996, the petitioner has been allowed notional pay fixation benefit for the period from 13.07.1981 to 29.10.1995 and cash benefits w.e.f. 30.10.1995 vide the Directorate of Social Welfare and Social Education, Agartala, Memo No.F.34(80)-DSWE/LA94 dated 30.10.1995. In pursuance to the judgment and order, passed by the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench on 05.06.1996 in Civil Rule No.52 of 1996 [Mira Roy vs. State of Tripura] the notional pay fixation benefits was given from 13.07.1981 to 02.04.1991 and the cash benefits w.e.f. 03.04.1991. Other terms of the said memorandum remained unchanged.

[5] Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when by the memorandum dated 02.06.2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the Supervisors (ICDS) namely, Nirmalendu Bikash Paul and others were regularized from the date of their adhoc appointment, the petitioner was left out. The petitioner was not regularized for reason, if any, unknown to the petitioner. The petitioner on 20.09.2017 having noticed that memorandum dated. 02.06.2017 filed a representation claiming the similar benefits in her favour. Even though the petitioner has retired from the service on 13.04.2006 a decade before the said memo dated 02.06.2017 was issued, she has approached this court for similar relief.

[6] Now, by this writ petition, she has urged this court to direct the respondents to regularize her services from the day of her Ad-hoc appointment in the post of the Supervisor (ICDS) in terms of the memorandum dated 02.06.2017 and to pay the arrears that would accrue on account of such regularisation. It has been averred in the reply filed by the respondents that by the office order dated 15.05.2001 (Annexure-R2 to the reply), the petitioner had been reverted to the post of the Junior Social Education Organiser, the re-designated post of the Social Education Worker.

[7] In the same office order dated 15.05.2001, it has been observed that the Gauhati High Court by the judgment and order dated 08.03.2000, dismissed the writ petition being WP(C) 394 of 1999 filed by the writ petitioner.

[8] Mr. Deb, learned counsel having referred to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had challenged the order of reversion dated 15.05.2001 but unfortunately no copy of that writ petition has been enclosed either with the present writ petition or with the rejoinder, but the petitioner has placed a copy of the interim order dated 24.05.2001 delivered in WP(C) 301 of 2001. However, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that since the petitioner had retired on 03.04.2006, she had not prosecuted the writ petition and the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the same by the order dated 05.03.2007.

[9] Be that as it may, Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 05.03.2007. The prayer for withdrawal was advanced by the writ petition and accordingly by the said order, the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed. The interim order as referred earlier was recalled. The solitary ground as surfaced from the submission of Mr. Deb, learned counsel is that if the similarly circumstanced persons were regularized with effect from their date of appointment, how the petitioner cannot be segregated and left out simply for the very fact that she was retired on 03.04.2006.

[10] That apart, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has contended that writ petition against the order of reversion even if was withdrawn that will not take away the right animated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the order of regularization of the similarly circumstanced persons was passed on 02.06.2017. This court is not aware whether the persons whose name are appearing in the memorandum dated 02.06.2017 were also reverted at any point of time. If the reversion order was given effect to, and thereafter those persons were reconsidered and given the benefit of retrospective regularization, the petitioner can ask for the similar benefit as equal to those persons whose names have appeared in the memorandum dated 02.06.2017.

[11] Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that if they were given the regularization from the date of their recruitment, the petitioner is as well entitled to get similar regularization. To this analogy, this court is not at all agreeable inasmuch as the consideration for the regularization may be the substantive period of service. But as referred earlier, before a decade from the date of passing the memorandum dated 02.06.2017, the petitioner had retired. Even she had withdrawn her challenge against the reversion.

[12] Hence, this court is unable to accept that the petitioner and the persons whose name have appeared in the memorandum dated 02.06.2017 are similarly circumstanced. However, it is made absolutely clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to pension and other retiral benefits against her substantive appointment in the post of the Social Education Worker (re-designated as Junior Social Education Organiser) considering her appointment w.e.f 13.07.1981. If those benefits are still not paid, the respondent shall pay all those benefits within a period of three months from the day when a copy of this order will be placed by the petitioner. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the due drawn statement or the final account in respect of her retiral benefit against the post of Junior Social Education Organiser, she will be at liberty to approach this court.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.