Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.80 seconds)Party Name : Sajal Ch. Deb vs Tripura State Polluction Control Board ... on 20 January, 2017
[23] Though learned Advocate General argues that the
entire judgment of Sajal Deb's case has to be
implemented only through a scheme and when the
scheme was framed by the State, already the petitioners
had left for their new job, but such submission cannot be
accepted for the reason that such direction to frame the
scheme in said case, was only for the purpose of
regularization of SSA teachers as contained in paragraph
no.54 of the said judgment and not regarding granting of
regular pay scale to them. Learned Advocate General
also raises the point that there was no direction in the
said judgment for giving benefit of past service in case
any SSA teacher subsequently joins to another service.
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Jagjit Singh And Ors on 26 October, 2016
In
Jagjit Singh's case also, Hon'ble Supreme Court took
note of that situation and expressed that such a person
does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the
cost of his self-respect and dignity.
Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986
[28] Learned Advocate General relies on a decision as
rendered in Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti
Corporation of India (Supra). In this case, the Apex
Court referring to rules 13 and 14 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules held that qualifying service of a Govt. employee
shall commence from the date he takes charge of the
post to which he is first appointed, may be on officiating
or temporary basis but casual or contractual service
cannot be treated to service rendered on substantive
post. Said decision was rendered in different contexts.
Manju Roy (Ghosh) vs The State Of Tripura And 3 Ors on 17 November, 2021
Learned senior counsel further submits
that the issue involved in the present batch of writ petitions is
already settled by this Court in case of Mani Kanchan Ghosh vs.
the State of Tripura and others [WP(C) No.52 of 2022
decided analogously with eighteen other writ petitions on
05.11.2025] and in the similar line, the present writ petitions may
also be disposed of. Regarding the petitioners who did not complete
5(five) years of service on fixed pay basis in SSA, learned senior
counsel submits that a scope may be given to them to submit
necessary representation to the appropriate authority in this regard
by adding certain new grounds with respective materials in support
of their such claim, reserving liberty to them to approach the Court
again, if so required.
S.D. Jayaprakash And Ors. Etc. vs The Union Of India on 22 September, 2023
[29] Rule 17 of the Pension Rules which is an exception
to said rule 13, deals with counting of past service
rendered on contract basis where option is given to a
contractual employee either to retain government
contribution received in his contributory provident fund,
or to forego it. In case, any contractual employee
foregoes it, his past service on contractual basis is
counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Recently, in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash and others vs.
Union of India and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 973,
where the appellants were appointed as Data Entry
Operators under a scheme on temporary and contractual
basis and later on were regularised in their service, the
Apex Court held that their past services should be
counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits on their
exercise of option in this regard. According to Mr. Roy
Barman, learned senior counsel submits, as SSA
teachers, the petitioners were earlier enjoying non-
contributory provident fund.
1