SHRI AMAR PAUL Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OF EDUCATION AND THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVT. OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a short compass, fact of this writ case, filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Tripura (respondent No. 2) on 14.01.1983 and was posted at Radhacharan Thakurpara Junior Basic School under Inspectorate of Schools, Jirania. He joined his duties on 25.01.1983 and rendered his services up to 19th December, 1984. Thereafter, he discontinued from attending his service for alleged reasons beyond his control and remained absent from duties for a continuous period of 14 years. On 15.02.1999, he made a representation to resume his duties and his representation was favourably considered by respondent No. 2 and on 23.10.2000 respondent No. 2 directed the Inspector of Schools, Jirania to allow the petitioner to resume his duties in the school, where he was posted (Radhacharan Thakurpara Junior Basic School), and accordingly, the petitioner joined his duties on 08.11.2000. During the period of his absence from duties, in the year 1986, Radhacharan Thakurpara Junior Basic School under Jirania Schools Inspectorate, by a Notification dated 01.04.1986 was handed over to the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (for short, TTAADC) with all properties including teaching and non -teaching staff, 'as is where is' condition, and in the list of teachers, the petitioner's name was not figured, perhaps, because of mistake, since the petitioner was not on duty at the relevant point of time. The petitioner's joining report dated 08.11.2000 was sent to the appropriate authority of the TTAADC and the authority decided not to accept the joining report of the petitioner in the school of the District Council since the service of the petitioner was not handed over to the District Council. In the meantime, the petitioner performed his duties at Radhacharan Thakurpara Junior Basic School from 08.11.2000 to 31.01.2001 but could not put his signature in the attendance register and his salaries and allowances were also not paid by the TTAADC. Since his service was not accepted by the TTAADC and since he was not posted in any school under the Directorate of School Education (respondent No. 2), under such circumstances, he filed writ petition vide WP(C) 143 of 2003 in the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench and the learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 01.02.2005 disposed of the writ petition with following observations and direction: -

(2.) RESPONDENTS by filing counter affidavit contended that the petitioner was absent from duties for continuous period and as per the High Court's order passed in WP(C) No. 243 of 2003 the period of absence has been regularized by treating it as dies non, since there is no other scope to regularize it. There is no scope of regularizing the period from 05.11.1984 to 07.11.2000 and the period from 01.02.2001 to 28.04.2005. As per the High Court's order the period from 08.11.2000 to 31.01.2001 was treated as on duty at Radhacharan Thakurpara Junior Basic School and pursuant to the High Court's order for the said period payment was also made. The respondents further contended that Annexure -B to the writ petition, i.e. Memo. dated 21.10.2005 was cancelled by Memo. dated 23.05.2006 (Annexure -R/1 to the counter affidavit) and thereafter by Memo. dated 20.06.2006 (Annexure -R/2 to the counter affidavit). Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to explain as to why the aforesaid period of absence w.e.f. 05.11.1984 to 07.11.2000 and 01.02.2001 to 28.04.2005 should not be treated as dies non, and thereafter in consideration of the submission of the petitioner by Memo. dated 10.08.2006, the final order was passed directing that the aforesaid period should be treated as dies non for all purposes, i.e. increment, leave, pension, etc.

(3.) COUNTERING the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Chowdhury, learned State counsel, Mr. J. Majumder has submitted that the word, "dies -non" is not foreign to the Service Jurisprudence. Rule 24 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986 deals with the concept of dies non and a person like the petitioner who absented from duties voluntarily and willfully without any prior permission should be treated as dies non as there is no other scope to give him benefit of leave in any other form. He has contended that the period has been declared as dies non after giving all opportunities to the petitioner of being heard, which is evident from (Annexure -R/2 and R/3 to the counter affidavit) and, hence the writ Court may not interfere in the administrative action taken by the respondents.