The court ruled that artificial breaks in service should not prevent the counting of past service for pension calculations, affirming the petitioner's entitlement to her pensionary benefits.

JUDGMENT :

T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. De, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents-State.

[2] The brief facts of the case is that, the petitioner joined the Tripura State Social Welfare Advisory Board in the Post of Contingent Clerk-cum-Typist w.e.f, 30.12.1987. Subsequently, after attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2020. But it is pertinent to mention here that while providing pension and other service benefits the 50% past service rendered by the petitioner as contingent Worker was not counted and the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 is passed by the respondents. Being aggrieved the petitioner sought for the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other order/orders shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to count 50% of the service rendered by the Petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.1987 till her regularization on 01.02.2011 along with the regular service rendered by the Petitioner from 01.02.2011 to 31.01.2020 for determining the qualifying service years rendered by the Petitioner necessary for calculation of pension and other pensionary benefits.

ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other order/orders shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to recalculate the amount of monthly pension and other pensionary benefits including DCR Gratuity which became admissible to the petitioner taking into consideration 50% of service rendered by the Petitioner as Contingent Clerk w.e.f 31.12.1987 to 01.02.2011 with her Regular service as LDC w.e.f. 01.02.2011 to 31.01.2020 and pay the arrear amount of pension with interest @9% per annum and thereafter to continue the current pension.

iii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other order/orders shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to pay interest @9% on delayed payment of pension and other pensionary benefits.

iv) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other order/orders shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to pay the amount of gratuity and pensionary benefit which became admissible to the Petitioner on her retirement from service after adding 50% of service rendered by the Petitioner as Contingent Clerk with her regular service in the post of LDC for determining the qualifying service of the Petitioner and pay the balance amount after deducting the payment already made with interest @9% per annum on the balance amount with effect from the date it became payable till such payment is made. v) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other order/orders shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to quash and cancel the Order, dated, 31.08.2024, issued by the Director, Social Welfare and Social Education, Govt. of Tripura

vi) Make the rules absolute.

vii) Call for records.

viii) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon’ble High Court considers fit and proper.

[3] The petitioner, as per Memorandum dated 30.12.1987, joined in the post of Contingent Clerk-Cum-Typist on the consolidated Pay of Rs.700/- per month in the establishment of Tripura State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Agartala. Accordingly, she joined on 31^st December 1987, service period was only for 89 days. Thereafter, from time to time her engagement has been renewed. The Chairperson of the said Board issued memorandum dated 08.01.1988 engaging the petitioner in the post of Contingent Clerk-cum- Typist for a period of 89 days.

[4] The Chairperson, Tripura State Social Welfare Board, issued a Memorandum dated 24.01.2011 by which the petitioner was issued an offer of appointmen