1 4
Page of
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.61 of 2023
State of Tripura & others
Appellant(s);
………
Versus
Smt. Lily Gabil
………Respondent(s).
along with
WA No.62 of 2023
State of Tripura & others
………Appellant(s);
Versus
Smt. Ayesha Begum
dent(s).
………Respon
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : None.
APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
S.D. PURKAYASTHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
Order
29/04/2024
Heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate
for the appellants-State.
2. Both the appeals are tagged together as they raise common issues.
In both the appeals, the learned Writ Court has directed the respondents to
consider the representation of the writ petitioner in accordance with law in the
light of the judgment passed by this Court in WP(C) No.853/2017 and other
analogous cases dated 21.08.2017 within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of the order. The facts of both the writ petitioners are common.
3. Writ petitioner Lily Gabil was appointed as a School Mother on
23.07.1990 whereas writ petitioner Ayesha Begum was appointed on
19.07.1990 on the same post. The services of both these petitioners were
regularized on 03.11.2007. The first petitioner has superannuated on
2 4
Page of
28.02.2021 and petitioner Ayesha Begum has superannuated on 29.02.2020.
They approached the Writ Court with a prayer to count their services on
consolidated fixed pay basis from the date of their engagement as School
Mother till the date of their regularization for the purposes of pensionary
benefits. The learned Writ Court took into consideration the stand of the parties
and the decision rendered earlier in WP(C) No.853/2017 and other analogous
matters dated 21.08.2017 on the same issue concerning the School Mothers and
directed the respondents to decide the representation of these writ petitioners in
the light of that judgment and order.
4. Mr. D. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
inter alia
appellants-State, has assailed the impugned judgment and order on
the ground that the cases of the present petitioners are not similar to those of the
writ petitioners in WP(C) No.853/2017. He submits that the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate that services of the School Mother under the State
Government and Anganwadi workers engaged under a scheme of the Central
Government is totally different in terms of remuneration and conditions for
providing pension. He further submits that the learned Single Judge also failed
to appreciate that half of the period of service of employees who worked as
Contingent employees (except Part Time Contingent employees), piece rated
Typist etc. should be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Subsequently, post of School Mother was incorporated in the said pension
scheme after pronouncement of the judgment and order in the case of Smt.
Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) v. The State of Tripura & others passed in WP(C)
No.77/2015 for counting their services rendered prior to their regularization for
3 4
Page of
the purposes of calculating the qualifying service for pension and other retiral
benefits. As such, the impugned orders may be set aside.
5. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
appellants, taken note from the relevant pleadings on record, the decisions
rendered by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Chhabi
Rani Roy v. The State of Tripura & others passed in WP(C) No.853/2017 and
other analogous cases dated 21.08.2017, the decision rendered by learned
Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.77/2015 dated 08-10-2015 in the
case of Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra) [Annexure-9] and also the impugned
directions.
The case of Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) is also related to a School
Mother who was initially appointed on fixed term basis vide order dated
19.07.1990 and later her services were regularized on 03.11.2007. She
superannuated on 30.06.2013 and sought counting of her past service for the
purposes of reckoning her qualifying service for pensionary benefits. In those
circumstances, the learned Division Bench of this Court held as under:
“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 regularization 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
st
31 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.”
That judgment and order has been followed and as per the stand of
the appellants, in the writ appeals also the post of School Mother has,
thereafter, been incorporated in the pension scheme.
4 4
Page of
6. The case of Smt. Chhabi Rani Roy (supra) and other analogous
cases were decided by the learned Single Bench of this Court taking note of the
decision rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) in WP(C) No.77/2015. The opinion of the
learned Division Bench from para 6 till para 11 has been quoted in the said
decision as well. The learned Single Bench, in those circumstances, directed the
respondents to count the services rendered by the petitioners from the date of
their joining as School Mother on fixed pay basis till their regularization for the
purposes of pensionary benefits. Those decisions have admittedly been
complied with. On facts, the cases of the present petitioners/respondents herein
do not carry any distinction. These petitioners would also have served more
than ten years for reckoning the qualifying service for pension; but in terms of
the ratio rendered in the case of Smt. Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) (supra), they
would also have the benefit of counting their past services for reckoning the
total period of qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
7. Since this Court has rendered a decision on the same issue earlier
which stands complied with and there are no distinguishing features in the
cases of the present petitioners/respondents herein, we do not find any reason to
interfere in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the instant appeals are
dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications shall stand closed.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pijush/
MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2024.04.30 16:12:55 +05'30'