Tripura High Court
Sri Arun Kanti Chakraborty vs The State Of Tripura on 21 February, 2019
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP (C) No. 06 of 2019
Sri Arun Kanti Chakraborty,
H/o late Bithika Chakraborty,
R/o Kalibari Road, P.S. Dharmanagar,
P.O. Kadmtala, Dist: North Tripura,
PIN-799261
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
to be represented by the Secretary
to the Government of Tripura,
Social Welfare and Social Education
Department (Civil Secretariat),
New Capital Complex,
Agartala: 799010, West Tripura
2. The Secretary,
Government of Tripura,
Finance Department,
New Secretariat Complex,
P.S. Capital Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban- 799006, West Tripura
3. The Director
Social Welfare and
Social Education Department,
Government of Tripura, Abhoynagar,
P.S. Capital Complex, P.O. Abhoynagar,
799005, West Tripura
4. The Accountant General (A & E)
Malancha Nibas, Kunjaban,
P.S. Capital Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, 799006
5. The Accounts Officer
O/o the Accountant General (A & E),
Malancha Nibas, Kunjaban,
P.S. Capital Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, 799006
6. Child Development Project Officer,
Panisagar ICDS Project, Panisagar,
North Tripura
---- Respondent(s)
Page 2 of 6
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K Nath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B Majumder, Adv.
Mr. D Sarma, Addl. Adv.
Whether fit for reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Judgment & Order(Oral)
21.02.2019
Heard Mr. K Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D Sarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 6 and Mr. B Majumdar, learned CGC appearing for the respondents No. 4 & 5.
2. Grievance of the petitioner, as projected in this writ petition, is that his wife, namely, Bithika Chakraborty was engaged as the Anganwadi Worker on 30.12.1990 in the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS, in short) under the control of the Social Welfare and Social Education Department, Government of Tripura. There is no dispute that the petitioner's wife was appointed to the post of Supervisor (ICDS) in the regular establishment of Social Welfare and Social Education Department w.e.f. 04.01.2008 on promotion. Finally, the petitioner's wife was to retire on superannuation on and from 31.11.2012 (afternoon), but as per the government policy, 3 (three) month's extension was provided to her and finally she retired from the post of Supervisor (ICDS) w.e.f. 31.03.2012.
Page 3 of 6
3. Unfortunately, on 01.02.2017, the petitioner's wife died. The petitioner had approached the concerned department for processing her retiral benefits but since the petitioner's wife had only rendered 4 (four) years 2 (two) months 28 (twenty eight) days in the regular establishment in the post of Supervisor (ICDS), her pension and other benefits were not considered.
4. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's wife rendered 27 (twenty seven) years, 1(one) month as the Anganwadi Worker but any part of that period was not added as the qualifying service and as such her pension was not released.
5. There is also no dispute that the post of Supervisor (ICDS) is in the pensionable establishment, regulated by Central Civil Services (Pension Rules) 1972 as adopted by the government of Tripura.
6. Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the state government has added 50% of service as rendered as the Anganwadi Worker to the service of Supervisor (ICDS) who had similarly appointed from Anganwadi Worker to the Supervisor (ICDS) on promotion.
7. That apart, Mr. Nath, learned counsel has referred to a decision of this court in Sandhya Banik & Ors. vs. State of Tripura & Ors. [the common judgment & order dated 24.01.2017 in WP (C) No. 71/2011 and Ors.] where this court had observed as under:
"....While the State is a benevolent employer of the workmen, I do not think it appropriate for Page 4 of 6 the State would be taking a stand that simply because the particular nomenclature was not mentioned in those Govt. notifications, the petitioners who spent their entire service period, they will be deprived/denied of the benefits of at least 50% of their such services towards their pensionary benefits. In my considered opinion, though there is no mention of Anganwadi workers in those notifications of the State Government, the same view may be taken in respect of the Anganwadi workers, who have been ultimately promoted to the post of Supervisor (ICDS). The services rendered by those Supervisor (ICDS) in the post of Anganwadi workers should be taken to consideration and 50% of such services shall be counted for pensionary benefits."
8. In terms of those observations those writ petitions were allowed.
9. It would be apparent from the communication dated 25.06.2012 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) that the government had implemented the said judgment, but in the case of the petitioner's wife, the benefit of the judgment was not extended as she was not the petitioner.
10. The respondents No. 1-3 by filing their reply have asserted that Social Welfare and Social Education Department had already implemented the judgment and order of this Court by counting 50% of the service of Anganwadi Workers to the service of the Supervisor (ICDS) for purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Her pension proposal has been sent to the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura on 25.06.2018 vide No. F.6(39)/CDPO/PNS/ 2018/431-32. The Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura, has communicated to the CDPO, Panisagar, ICDS Project in response and requested to furnish a copy of the relevant judgment Page 5 of 6 and order of this Court, if any, in the matter of late Bithika Chakraborty, retired Supervisor (ICDS).
11. It has been further observed that by the memorandum No.F.34(610)-DSWE/LA/2012017/4551(67) dated 02.11.2017, which memorandum was issued after the concurrence of the Finance Department by their order No. 1063/FIN(G)/17 dated 21.09.2017 by granting the benefits as directed by the said judgment, but the similar benefits were not extended to the petitioner's wife by the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura since the petitioner's wife was not a petitioner in the said batch of writ petitions. A copy of the memorandum dated 02.11.2017 (Annexure R-1 to the reply filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3) bears testimony of such implementation of the said judgment.
12. Mr. B Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondents has quite candidly submitted that unless the order of this court includes the name of the petitioner's wife and there is no extant rule, the petitioner's wife cannot automatically get the same benefit. In view of that, the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura had asked for transmitting a copy of the said judgment.
13. There is no dispute in the bar that since the petitioner's wife was not a petitioner in the said batch of writ petitions her name did not figure in the judgment. To break this stalemate, the petitioner has approached this court. This court finds that the petitioner is similarly circumstanced like the petitioners of the said batch of writ petitions including WP(C) No.71/2011 and as such she is also entitled to get the similar benefit.
Page 6 of 6
14. In view of that, it is directed that the respondents shall add 50% of the service as rendered by the petitioner's wife as Anganwadi Worker with the qualifying service of the post of Supervisor (ICDS) and her entitlement will, thereafter, be determined by the competent authority, in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed within 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this judgment and order.
15. In terms of the above, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs.
16. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties.
JUDGE satabdi