Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 296
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ, Biswajit Palit, J
The State Of Tripura And Others – Appellant
Versus
Smt Sukriti Debnath and Ors. – Respondent
WA No.49 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Regularization and Pensionary Benefits
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mangal Debbarma
For the Respondents: Arijit Bhaumik, Agniva Chakrabarti
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding temporary appointment and the subsequent claim for regularization by legal heirs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments against extending regularization benefits to employees who died before the regularization date. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. regularization benefits cannot be denied based on the fortuitous date of death if similarly situated employees were regularized. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. modification of the interest rate on retiral benefits to a reasonable percentage. (Para 11) |
Judgment & Order (Oral)
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
Heard counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dt. 31.01.2025 of the Learned Single Judge in WP(C)No.211 of 2024.
3. The appellant’s husband by name, Nalini Mohan Debnath had been appointed on 01.04.1991 temporarily as Supervisor, ICDS along with several others. He died on 12.02.2012.
4. The persons appointed along with him were regularized w.e.f. the date of their appointment by a cabinet decision of 02.06.2017 and it was held that they can get the consequential benefits of seniority and pensions.
5. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 who are legal heirs of Nalini Mohan Debnath have filed the writ petition seeking similar relief to Nalini Mohan Debnath by treating him as having being appointed regularly, w.e.f. 01.04.1991 like the other persons and for a further direction to release all service benefits admissible on his death till then. These include death cum retirement gratuity and leave encashment with interest.
6. The respondents contended before the Learned Single Judge that said individual had been appointed only temporarily and not appointed regularly, and an ad-hoc appointment does not automatically give any vested right to the appointee to claim continuity in service till it is regularized. They further contended that, on sympathetic grounds as per the verdict of this Court dt. 26.03.2014 in WP(C)No.22 of 2006 the matter was considered and relief was granted to persons similar to Late Nalini Mohan Debnath by the Cabinet of this State on 02.06.2017.
7. According to them, the services of one Ram Krishna Bhattacharjee retired from service on 31.12.2016 and one Nripendra Nath who had also retired from service on 30.11.2016 and even expired on 06.12.2016, were regularized on 02.06.2017 and benefits were given to them. Nalini Mohan Debnath cannot be given the said benefit because he died in 2012 itself.
8. The Learned Single Judge disagreed with the contention of the respondents and held that the denial of benefit of regularization to the deceased employee would amount to arbitrariness and discrimination because Brajendra Debnath and the petitioner had both approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.22 of 2006 and Brajendra Debnath’s service had been regularized. Likewise though Nripendra Nath had died on 06.12.2016, his service was also regularized by the Cabinet on 02.06.2017. Even Ram Krishna Bhattacharjee who had retired from service on 31.12.2016 was given the benefit of regularization by the respondents on 02.06.2017.
9. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madanlal Sharma (Dead) Through LRS. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.14753 of 2024 wherein pensionary benefits were granted to a temporary employee who died by treating him as a permanent employee. A direction was given by the Supreme Court to release family pension also in that case.
10. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge as it is impermissible for the appellants to discriminate between late Nalini Mohan Debnath and the persons mentioned above depending on the fortuitous aspect of the date of death. If all of them had been appointed on ad-hoc basis and the above three persons had retired even before 02.06.2017 and they had been given benefits, late Nalin
