Fraudulent appointments in public service lead to the forfeiture of all related employment benefits, and courts will not entertain claims based on equitable considerations where fraud is present.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1374 of 2017 whereby the relief, sought for, was declined to the petitioner and his writ petition was dismissed.

2. The factual backgrounds of the case are as under:-

The petitioner (appellant herein) was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police w.e.f. 01.10.1989. Since he did not get any promotion, the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) was extended to him. On his completion of 10 years of service, he was favoured with the first upgradation of scale of pay under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 w.e.f. 02.10.1999. Similarly, the second upgradation of scale under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) was also released in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 02.10.2009. Thereafter, by PHQ order No.322/2009 dated 29.10.2010, the petitioner was terminated from service pursuant to cancellation of his caste certificate by the State Level Scrutiny Committee [SLSC] under order No.87/SDO/BLN/CTZN/84 dated 18.03.1985.

3. The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of his caste certificate by filing a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed. He also filed a review petition which was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.1374 of 2017 claiming re-fixation of his pay till the date of his termination from service and release of his pension, GPF, leave salary, gratuity, group insurance etc.

4. Relying on the facts of WP(C) No.1181 of 2017 [Shri Subhash Ranjan Bhattacharjee v. The State of Tripura and others], petitioner claimed that he was similarly situated with said Subhash Ranjan Bhattacharjee who was inducted with him in the State Police Service as a Sub-Inspector of Police. The writ petition filed by Shri Subhash Ranjan Bhattacharjee claiming re-fixation of pay was allowed by this High Court by judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 passed in WP(C) 1181 of 2017. Petitioner, therefore, claimed his re-fixation of pay in similar line for the past service rendered by him before his termination.

5. The State-respondents in their counter affidavit contended that since the petitioner obtained the appointment by playing a fraud, he would not be entitled to any benefit flowing from the post held by him.

6. Appearing before the learned Single Judge, counsel of the petitioner argued that even though the termination order of the petitioner reached its finality, there was no bar in releasing the financial benefits claimed by the petitioner on the basis of his earlier status. To persuade the learned Single Judge, counsel of the petitioner relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court:

1. Raju Ramsingh Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors.; reported in (2008) 9 SCC 54,

2. Damodar v. Secretary, Industrial Energy and Labour Department & Ors.; reported in (2010) 15 SCC 537,

3. State of Maharashtra v. Milind; reported in (2001) 1 SCC 4,

4. Raiwad Manojkumar Nivruttirao v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.; reported in (2011) 9 SCC 798,

5. Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors.; reported in (2017) 8 SCC 670,

6. Central Warehousing Corporation v. Jagdishkumar Vithalrao Panjankar & Anr., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 500.

7. Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. while opposing the contention of the counsel of the petitioner argued before the learned Single Judge that even though the benefit claimed by the petitioner related to the service rendered by him before his termination from service, he would not be entitled to such b