Entitlement to CAS-3 benefit is based on the date of regular appointment, not ad-hoc engagement.

Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the respondents denying them the benefit of CAS-3 [as modified] under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, in short ‘ROP, 1999’ w.e.f. 24.07.2004 when the petitioners had completed 8(eight) years of service as the Agricultural Officer (Grade-I of Tripura Agricultural Service) Group-B Gazetted. The petitioners have asserted that their appointment on 25.07.1996 should have been taken as their day of appointment for purpose of extending the said benefit.

3. As consequence of the said relief, the petitioners have also urged this court to direct the respondents to modify the Memorandum No.F.2(74)-Agri/Estt/2001-02/8234-8485 dated 08.11.2007 (Annexure-R and Annexure-S to the writ petition), whereby the petitioners alongwith others were moved to CAS-3 in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-300-15,100/- on completion of 8(eight) years continuous and satisfactory qualifying service in the existing post without promotion. The petitioners have further urged that the respondents be directed to treat the petitioners holding the posts of Agricultural Officer, Grade-V of the Tripura Agriculture Service (TAS), re-designated subsequently as Agricultural Officer, Grade-I (Group-B Gazetted) borne in the TAFS w.e.f. 25.07.1996.

4. The brief resume of fact as would be relevant for purpose of appreciating the controversy as raised in this writ petition is that all the petitioners were appointed as the Agricultural Officer (Grade-V of TAS), Group-B Gazetted on ad-hoc basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 2,100-4,530/- for a period of 6(six) months by the Notification under No. F.2(124)-Agri(Estt)/93-94/11,427-469 dated 14.08.1996 (Annexure-G to the writ petition).

5. There is no dispute that without any demur the petitioners had continued in the said posts on ad-hoc basis. However, in response to the Advertisement No.16/97 dated 03.12.1997 (Annexure-G/2 to the writ petition), all the petitioners had participated in the selection process as conducted by the Tripura Public Service Commission. There is no dispute as well that by the Memorandum No.F.2(124)-Agri(Estt)/93-94/Part/3334-37 dated 07.09.1998 (Annexure-H to the writ petition), the petitioners were appointed as the Agricultural Officer (TAFS Grade-I), Group-B Gazetted, in the regular establishment in the scale of pay of Rs. 2,100-4,530/-. Till by the Memorandum dated 08.11.2007 (Annexure-R and Annexure-S to the writ petition) the petitioners were moved to CAS-3 in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,100/-, they never raised any objection regarding the ‘effective’ date of appointment in the regular establishment. Only after that Memorandum dated 08.11.2007, the petitioners had urged the respondents to treat their date of appointment w.e.f. 25.07.1996, the date when the petitioners were engaged on ad-hoc basis as the Agricultural Officers.

6. The petitioners have contended that since the petitioners are regularly appointed, they are entitled to get their ad-hoc service counted for their seniority or for any other purpose. In this regard, the petitioners have relied on the Memorandum No.F.23(16)GA(P&T)/91 dated 19.07.2001 (Annexure-N to the writ petition), whereby in terms of the judgment dated 11.06.2001 passed in W.P.(C) No.308/2000 by the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, the Government of Tripura had declared as under:

“1. In exceptional circumstances where in exigencies of public service ad-hoc appointments/promotions are made, the same should be limited to one year only. On expiry of one year, the ad-hoc appointment/promotion shall automatically cease. Ad-hoc appointments/promotions may only be allowed in exceptional circumstances as mentioned at paragraph-1 of this Memorandum.”

7. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petit