Back
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Mr. Justice T. Amarnath Goud, J
Smt. Mina Deb – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura and 4 Ors. – Respondent
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 dete
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to have their past services counted for pensionary benefits, as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and ....
Employees are entitled to regularization under government policy when they meet the criteria for continuous service despite mechanical breaks.
Services rendered as a daily wager employee cannot be counted for pension/quantum of pension, but after regularization, the employee cannot be denied pension for not completing the qualifying service....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entire length of service from the date of initial appointment should be considered for the purposes of fixation of pensionary benefits.
Failure to notify instructions to employees before implementation cannot be used to deny benefits, and ad-hoc service should be counted as qualifying service for computing pensionary benefits as per ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
