State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Anarkali Begam And Anr .

Heard Mr. M Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. B Majumder, learned Asst. SG who appears for the respondent No.2 on advance notice.

According to the appellants, the decision of the learned Single Judge as reflected in the order dated 10.09.2020 delivered in WP(C) 439 of 2020 [Anarkali Begam Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] is wholly erroneous as the principle as laid down by this court in Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) Vs. State of Tripura & Ors. [judgment and order dated 08.10.2015 delivered in WP(C) 77 of 2015] cannot be universally applied.

In Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra) this Court has laid down the principle which is available in para 12 of the said judgment:

"12. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) and it is directed that the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of her joining as School Mother on fixed pay basis pursuant to the letter of appointment dated 19-07- 1990 till her regularisation shall be added to her regular service from 01-10- 2007 till her superannuation on 03-11-2007 for calculating her pension and other retiral benefits. The State shall ensure that the pension is accordingly fixed and all retiral benefits be released in favour of the petitioner latest by 31st January, 2016 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner, i.e. 30-06-2013 till payment/deposit of this amount."

Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the appellants has repeatedly submitted that the said decision is only relevant when the School Mother who was appointed on fixed pay basis and subsequently regularized but unless the part of the service she has rendered as the School Mother on fixed pay basis is added with the regular service, the person will not get any pension. Only in such circumstances, the addition is permissible in view of the decision of Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra).

Learned single judge has taken due care of this objection and has observed that the stand of the respondents are not correct. Firstly, it is not clear why despite the petitioner have completed more than 10 years of pensionable service before her retirement, she has not been paid pension. Secondly, whether she had completed 10 years of pensionable service or not, her right to claim benefit of past service for purpose of computation of pension and other retirement benefits has been acknowledge in the decision of Smti. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra). Learned single judge has further observed that the respondents (the appellants herein) shall count the past service of the petitioner in the manner as directed in Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra). In other words, her entire service from her initial engagement as a School Mother till her regularization shall add to her qualifying service for purpose of calculating her pension and other retirement benefits. The pension and other retiral benefits thus shall be calculated and her due be released within a period of three months from the day of the judgment.

Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA has not disputed that the decision of Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra) has been implemented by the State.

Having considered the submission of Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA, we are of the view that the way the judgment of Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra) has been understood by the state or for that purpose, the appellants, cannot be acceptable. The question that has been decided in Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra) was whether the petitioner Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) was entitled to get the service rendered by her as School Mother [on fixed pay basis] would be added to her qualifying service for pension and other retirement benefits. The answer was very categorical that such category of school mothers who joined on the fixed pay basis and later on, got regularized would be entitled to get their service rendered on fixed pay basis be added to their regular service for purpose of pension and other retirement benefits.

We do not find any distinction of the case in hand, if compared with the case of Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra). In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as the school mother by the order dated 13.07.1990 on fixed pay basis and she was regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2007 in Group-D post in the pay scale of 2600-3545 as the School Mother.

As we have already reproduced the relevant passage from Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra), but we find no distinction between these two cases and as such, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the judgment dated 10.09.2020 as challenged in this appeal and accordingly, this appeal, being bereft of merit, stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.