Mukti Saha And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. CS Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Rajib Saha, learned counsel and Ms Sarama Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

These writ petitions being WP(C)825 of 2019 [Mukti Saha Vs State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C)875 of 2019 [Kalpana Debnath Vs State of Tripura & Ors.] and WP(C)876 of 2019 [Rina Singha Roy Vs State of Tripura & Ors.] are combined for disposal by a common judgment as the writ petitioners have challenged the memorandum dated 17.06.2019 by which the petitioners were directed to submit their consent by the Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura for purpose of placing their service on deputation to the RD Department by means of the memorandum dated 20.11.2017 and 18.12.20174. As the District Rural Development Department (DRDA) had not been receiving the adequate fund, the DRDA was plunged in a difficult situation in making payment of salaries, etc. Except the petitioners, all other officers and employees had submitted their consent for placing their services to the Rural Development (RD) Department and accordingly, their services have been placed in the RD Department. The petitioners were finally asked to submit their duly filled in consent form without delay for facilitating payment of their pay and allowances from the head of account of the RD Department, Government of Tripura.

It is to be noted at the outset that all the petitioners are designated as „Rural Development Officers‟.

Mr. CS Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that by the order dated 12.07.2019, this Court was pleased to direct the respondents not to stop the payment of salaries to the petitioners and to release their salaries including the month of June, 2019.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel on the query of this court has submitted that the petitioners were appointed in the post of Gram Sevika by the memorandum under No. F.2(137-4)PD(DRDA)/87-88 dated 10.02.1988. The petitioners were appointed as Gram Sevika in the scale of pay of Rs.430-850 and their salary had been directed to be paid from the head of account - Scheme for Strengthening of Block Level Administration. The said memorandum dated 10.02.1988 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) was issued by the Project Director, West Tripura, DRDA. It appears from the communication dated 20.02.1989 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) that the benefits of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 was extended to the petitioners for purpose of revision of their pay scale.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has quite emphatically referred the order dated 12.05.2000 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) to assert that the writ petitioners were appointed on deputation to the post of RD Organizer against the existing vacancies in the pay scale of Rs.4200-8650. He has emphasized on para 3 of the said order dated 12.05.2000 where the following has been provided:

"3. The services of the R.D. Organisors are hereby placed at the disposal of the Project Director, D.R.D.A., West Tripura, Agartala on deputation basis who will in turn arrange their posting in the Blocks for utilization of their services exclusively for the programme of I.R.D.P and it's allied scheme."

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners were under the Rural Development Department and they were deputed to DRDA. Further, it would be apparent that the petitioners were appointed in the post of Rural Development Officer (RD Officer) in the scale of Rs.5500-10700 by virtue of the order dated 24.08.2006 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). The said order was issued by the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura, Agartala as the Chief Executive Officer of the DRDA, West Tripura, Agartala.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has contended that from a bare reading of the memorandum under No. F.6(56)-RD(IRDP)Vol-I/83 dated 06.09.1993 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), it would be apparent that the staff coming under the category of Rural Development Officer or Rural Development Organizer under Strengthening of Block Level Administration (SBLA) would be treated as State Government employees. It has been also clarified that the concerned DM & Collector will act as the Controlling Officer for the staff under the above category. 17 posts of LDCs, created for SBLA, were allocated to the District, 13 LDCs holding such posts were initially borne under DRDAs. It has been stated in the said memorandum dated 06.09.1993 that "LDCs recruited hereinafter would be government employees." For regulating their services, the District Magistrate & Collector had been appointed as the appointing authority in respect of those posts. Those LDCs will get pay and allowances at par with the government employees.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has submitted that after this clarification dated 06.09.1993, there cannot be any amount of confusion that the petitioners were appointed on deputation in the post of Rural Development Organizers or Rural Development Officers and they are entitled to be treated as the government officers.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has referred to the memorandum dated 03.05.2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the RD Department clearly observing that employees borne under SBLA are employees of RD Department. Their salary, etc. should be drawn from the State Budget. It appears further that the petitioners had filed representations to the District Magistrate and Collector to absorb them in the government posts considering the uncertainty that hangs over DRDA. By the memorandum dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) the petitioners and some other officers were requested to submit their duly filled in consent form as specified by the RD Department "for placement of their services on deputation to RD Department".

From the memorandum dated 17.06.2019 it appears further that except the petitioners, all the officers borne in DRDAs and catalogued in the said memorandum dated 20.11.2017 had submitted the consent form duly filled in, but the petitioners did not.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has submitted that since the petitioners are already the employees of RD Department, for their appointment as the RD Organizers and subsequently, to the higher post of RD Officer, they thought it fit that submission of consent form is absolutely superfluous and there is no question of deputation to the RD Department.

The state-respondents filed their reply and categorically stated that the recruitment rules for the posts of RD Organizer and RD Officer do not provide for filling up of the posts on deputation from the incumbents holding the non-government post in DRDAs. Moreover, the RD Department has not conveyed any approval for appointment of Gram Sevika (Junior Organizer) as RD Organizer on deputation under West Tripura District.

They have categorically stated that appointment of the petitioners as the RD Organizer was made on the normal terms of deputation. The petitioners have retained lien over their original post of Gram Sevika (Junior Organizer).

In para 8 of their reply, the respondents No.1 and 2 have traversed the contentions of the writ petitioners and stated that by the memorandum dated 06.09.1993, the RD Department has conveyed their decision/clarification in continuation of the earlier memorandum dated 24.07.1991 issued by the RD Department. It was clarified that the post created by the RD Department by the memorandum dated 10.03.1986 like Extension Officers (RD)/RD Workers (RD)/LD Clerks would be treated as the state government employees. They have categorically taken a stand in their reply that the petitioners‟ appointment as the RD Organizers on deputation was not in conformity with the recruitment rules for the said post.

The post of RD Officers (EO erstwhile) and RD Organizers (RDW erstwhile) were created under the State Level Monitoring (IRDP) Cell, Government of Tripura for implementation of rural development programmes in the Blocks under the scheme of „Strengthening of Block Level Administration‟ (SBLA). They have categorically stated further that the decision of providing pay and allowances from the fund of SBLA does not mean that the petitioners were appointed under SBLA. They have categorically stated in para 10 as follows:

"The person who is appointed to a post on deputation basis cannot claim absorption to the post and it is always open to the employer to repatriate the incumbent to his/her original post at any given point of time, if the service of incumbent is not required for the purpose of which she was appointed on deputation."

It has been further asserted that the salary of DRDA workers used to be met from the centrally sponsored scheme namely, "DRDA Administration" which is shared on 90:10 basis. The DRDA has been given the responsibility of implementing Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojna (SGSY), discontinued by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) with introduction of National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) in its place since 2013.

In para 12 of the reply, the respondents No. 1 & 2 have categorically stated that the RD Department has not conveyed any approval of appointment of existing Gram Sevika as RD Organizers/RD Officers on deputation under West Tripura District. Even then, they were so appointed but such appointment does not create any right to claim absorption in those posts. Mr. R Saha, learned counsel has submitted that the entire writ petition is misconceived inasmuch as, the writ petitioners do not have right to claim absorption, as a matter of right.

In the reply filed by the DRDA-respondents, i.e. the respondents No. 3 & 4, they have asserted that the petitioners were appointed as Gram Sevikas by the Project Director, West Tripura, DRDA. The respondents No. 3 & 4 have categorically stated that DRDA has been implementing various rural development programmes including DWCRA, TRYSEM, etc. Later on, DRDA was engaged for implementing SGSY or forming Self Help Groups (SHG) etc. In order to combat the financial crisis of DRDA, the RD Department had asked for consent of a good number of officers for borrowing them in the RD Department. The entire scheme was for lessening the financial crisis of DRDA. But the petitioners did not submit the consent without explaining any reason. They have also asserted that the petitioners were being paid their salaries and no outstanding of salaries was there when the reply was filed.

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel has responded by saying that the petitioners by filing a special petition being IA 01 of 2020 arising from these writ petitions have categorically stated that their salaries for the month of May and June, 2020 have not been paid. The said special petition was filed on 17.07.2020.

Mr. R Saha, learned counsel has submitted that the salaries perhaps have not beenpaid to the petitioners as they had not signed the consent form for deputation to the RD Department.

Having appreciated the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, this Court will observe that the petitioners were substantively appointed as Gram Sevikas under DRDA, West Tripura. Their subsequent appointments to the post of RD Organizers and RD Officers were on deputation and as such, they cannot, as a matter of right, claim absorption in those posts. The claim of the petitioners that by virtue of the memorandum dated 06.09.1993 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), they have been treated as government officers under the RD Department does not hold any force, as in the appointment letters of RD Organizers and RD Officers it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioners‟ appointment were on deputation.

That apart, this court does not find any decision of the RD Department on record that the petitioners‟ services were ever absorbed in the RD Department or they have been appointed substantively in any post of the RD Department. The petitioners have realized that situation, this is the reason why they had asked the State respondents by filing the representation to absorb them in the RD Department.

True it is that, the RD Department did not take any favourable action in favour of the petitioners, even though they had served in the post of RD Organizers and RD Officers for the last 20 years. In the context, this Court is of the view that such long tenure on deputation definitely creates legitimate expectation of absorption. However, this Court holds no jurisdiction to direct the RD Department or the State to absorb the petitioners, but the respondents No. 1 & 2 shall consider the representation of the petitioners in the right perspective and take a decision on their absorption under the RD Department as sought by the petitioners.

It is further directed that if the respondents did not release the salaries of the petitioners for any month, such salary shall be released within a period of 30 days from the day when the petitioners shall place a copy of this order.

The respondents shall continue to pay their salaries as they are on deputation in the Rural Development Department. Unless there is any change in the circumstances, the payment of salaries of the petitioners be continued undisturbed, irrespective of the fact whether they have submitted the consent or not. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file their consent in the form as provided by the Rural Development Department within a period of 30 days, else they would run the risk of non-submission of the said consent form.

In terms of the above, these writ petitions stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.