SRI SUBHAS RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ petition, the petitioner prayed for directing the respondents to count his past services rendered under the Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board (for short, 'the Board') during the period from 24.01.1974 to 07.09.1981, for the purpose of his pensionary benefits. Heard learned counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for the State respondents. Other respondents have chosen to remain absent.

(2.) PETITIONER inter alia contended that he served under the Board, a public sector undertaking of the Government of Tripura, during the period from 24.01.1974 to 07.09.1981. While in service, he applied for appointment to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police (for short, S.I. of Police) through proper channel and got the offer of appointment dated 05.09.1981 (Annexure -2). He approached the appropriate authority of the Board for his release to facilitate his joining as S.I. of Police and the Board by Memo dated 07.09.1981 (Annexure -3) released him from service in the afternoon of 07.09.1981 and he joined in the post of S.I. of Police on 09.09.1981, 08.09.1981 being a holiday. It is contended by the petitioner that he thought that his past services will be automatically counted, and, therefore, because of ignorance, he took no step towards counting of his past services. On 09.02.2001, he submitted a representation to his authority praying for counting his past services (Annexure -4). His representation was forwarded to the appropriate authority and respondent No. 3 by Memo dated 09.06.2001 (Annexure -6) made quarries as to why he applied for the benefit after 20 years. In response to it, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that because of his ignorance, he could not apply in time. His reply was duly forwarded to the appropriate authority. By a letter dated 20.02.2002, he was asked to inform as to whether he had exercised any option for counting of his past service in lieu of CPF benefit within one year from the date of appointment as a S.I. of Police (Annexure -12). In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 20.02.2002 stating that he could not remember whether he exercised option or not and that he was ready to refund CPF amount with interest which he had drawn at the time of release from the service of the Board. His letter dated 20.02.2002 is annexed as Annexure -13. He was thereafter informed by the authority by letter dated 06.05.2002 (Annexure -14) that Finance Department expressed their inability to agree with his proposal for counting the first services. The letter is marked as Annexure -14. Thereafter, the petitioner vide his letter dated 19.03.2004 submitted some specific instances of counting past services of some other persons namely Sri Balaram Basak, Sri Braja Gopal Majumder and Sri Sushil Kr. Das and copy of that letter annexed as Annexure -16. He has also stated that one Sushil Kr. Das, who was working as an Extension Officer in TRTC had been given the benefit of past services by Finance Department U.O. No. 1409/FIN (G)/201 dated 07.03.2001 in the Directorate of Industries & Commerce. A copy of that letter annexed as Annexure -17. Thereafter, his case was taken up for reconsideration by the Finance Department and Finance Department wrote letter to the Executive Officer of the Board for furnishing service book and other service particulars of the petitioner and pursuant thereto the Executive Officer of the Board by a letter dated 17.12.2014 informed the Finance Department of the Government of Tripura, the service particulars of the petitioner and further stated that the service book of the petitioner was not available since the office was shifted from one place to another place. Ultimately, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure -20) that Finance Department regretted the proposal of the petitioner for want of adequate information about past service of the petitioner.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1, 2 and 3 contested the case by filing a joint counter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner applied for the post of S.I. of Police as an ordinary general unemployed candidate. He did not apply for the post through proper Channel. He also did not enclose any document at the time of his joining that he served in the Board before joining as a S.I. of Police. It is contended by the respondents that the petitioner in Annexure -4 stated - "It is to state here so far I can remember that, at that time of joining in Police Department as S.I. of Police no option for counting of my previous service under Tripura Khadi and Village Industries Board was taken from me." Referring the above statement, the respondents contended that the petitioner admitted that he did not exercise option and that he did not return the amount of CPF to the Department for counting his past services. It is also contended by the respondents that the services under the Board was not pensionable service and the petitioner enjoyed benefit of Contributory Provident Fund. After his appointment in the Police service as a S.I. of Police, the petitioner was supposed to inform the Department within one year after surrendering the CPF and in that case, his prayer for counting past service would have been definitely considered. It is also contended that the petitioner at the time of his joining did not submit his release order from the Board and that has created the problem. Referring to Annexure -13 to the writ petition, the respondents contended that the petitioner himself stated - "So I could not remember specifically whether I have submitted option or not. However I am ready to refund the C.P.F. amount with interest which was drawn by me at the time of release from Tripura Khadi & Village Industries Board in consideration of counting of my past service." Referring to the above statement, the answering respondents contended that while the petitioner himself stated that he did not exercise option and enjoyed the CPF benefits with interest he cannot now claim the benefit of pension for his past services. He cannot be given the opportunity of depositing the CPF with interest after such long years. It is also contended by the respondents that the benefit of past services has been given to some employees, who deposited the CPF amount and their service records are easily available. It is clearly contended by the respondents that service book is the most important record which is required to be considered for counting the pensionable service. The Finance Department contacted with the Board and the Board has informed the Finance Department that the service book of the petitioner was not available and because of that the petitioner's past service could not be taken into consideration for counting.