IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
DEEPAK GUPTA & U.B. SAHA, JJ.
Mamata Rani Roy (Saha) Alias Mamata Roy - Petitioner
Versus
State of Tripura & Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 77 OF 2015
Decided On : 08.10.2015
Pension Entitlement - Service Qualification - Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 - CCS (Pension) Rules - [Rule 1(ii), Rule 2(c), Rule 13, Rule 14] - The court discussed the applicability of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules to all government employees, including contractual employees, and emphasized the definition of 'Government Employee' under Rule 2(c). The court also highlighted Rule 13 and Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, emphasizing the conditions for qualifying service and the entitlement to pension benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a fixed pay employee as School Mother, sought to include her service period for pension calculation. The State contended that her service as a fixed pay employee cannot be considered for pension entitlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's service as a fixed pay employee should be counted for pension calculation, emphasizing the applicability of relevant rules and the State's obligation to provide pension benefits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's service as a fixed pay employee should be considered for pension entitlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's service as a fixed pay employee should be included in her qualifying service for pension calculation, based on the relevant rules and the State's obligation to provide pension benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the inclusion of the petitioner's service as a fixed pay employee for pension calculation and ordering the State to ensure the release of pension and other retiral benefits with interest.
Deepak Gupta, J.
The short question which arises in this writ petition is whether the service rendered by the petitioner as fixed pay employee as School Mother has to be taken into consideration while computing her qualifying period for purposes of grant of pension and other retiral benefits.
2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as School Mother on fixed term basis vide order dated 19-07-1990. This appointment was on contractual basis but it continued till the petitioner was regularized in service on 03-11-2007. She retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-06-2013. The petitioner claims that this service is to be counted for purposes of calculating her qualifying service.
3. On the other hand, the stand of the State is that the appointment of the petitioner on fixed term basis cannot be taken into consideration and since the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service since her regular appointment in 2007 she is not entitled to pension. It is contended that the petitioner was not in a pensionable employment and was not a Government servant till her regularization.
4. Reference in this behalf may be made to the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. Rule 1(ii) reads as follows:-
“1(ii). They shall apply to all employees of the Government of Tripura except persons appointed to any All India Services.”
Rule 2(c) reads as follows:-
“2(c). “Government Employee” means a person appointed to a service or post in connection with the affairs of the State;”
5. Rule 1(ii) clearly mentions that it applies to all employees of the Government of Tripura except persons appointed to any All India Services. This rule makes no distinction between temporary employees, permanent employees, contractual employees etc. Therefore, it is apparent that even a contractual employee is governed by the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and is bound to maintain the standards of conduct expected under the said rules. Rule 2(c) again defines Government employee to mean a person appointed to a service or post in connection with the affairs of the State.
6. The main issue is as to whether the petitioner is a Government Servant or not. The basic authority on the point is a Constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex Court in The State of Assam and others v. Kanak Chandra Dutta, [AIR 1967 SC 884]. Reference may be made to paras-9, 10 and 11 of the judgment which read as follows:-
“9. The question is whether a Mauzadar is a person holding a civil post under the State within Art.311 of the Constitution. There is no formal definition of "post" and "civil post". The sense in which they are used in the Services Chapter of Part XIV of the Constitution is indicated by their context and setting. A civil post is distinguished in Art. 310 from a post connected with defence; it is a post on the civil as distinguished from the defence side of the administration, an employment in a civil capacity under the Union or a State, see marginal note to Art.311. In Art.311, a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State is mentioned separately, and a civil post means a post not connected with defence outside the regular civil services. A post is a service or employment. A person holding a post under a State is a person serving or employed under the State, see the marginal notes to Arts.309, 310 and 311. The heading and the sub-heading of Part XIV and Chapter I emphasise the element of service. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and a person holding a post under it. The existence of this relationship is indicated by the State's right to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration. A relationship of master and servant may be established by the presence of all or some of these indicia, in conjunction with o
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.