DEBASHIS SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.

(2.) All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.806 of 2018 [Sri Debasish Saha vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.807 of 2018 [ Sri Sankar Debnath vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No .808 of 2018 [ Sri Badal Majumder vs. State of Tripura and Ors.], W.P.(C) No .809 of 2018 [Sri Tarun Kishore Noatia vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.810 of 2018 [ Sri Pintu Debbarma vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No .811 of 2018 [ Sri Narayan Bir vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No .812 of 2018 [ Sri Sanjoy Saha vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No .813 of 2018 [ Sri Sankar Saha vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No .814 of 2018 [ Sri Bindu Madhab Saha vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No .815 of 2018 [ Sri Debasis Pal vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No .816 of 2018 [ Sri Santanu Biswas vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No .817 of 2018 [ Sri Nani Gopal Das vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] and W.P.(C) No .125 of 2019 [ Sri Abhijit Kar vs. State of Tripura & Ors .] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch all the petitioners are similarly circumstanced and they have by these writ petitions prayed for an identical relief. The reliefs as prayed in this batch of writ petitions are as follows:

(3.) Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have discharged all the duties and responsibilities of the Staff Nurse w.e.f. 16.05.2005 in terms of the order dated 07.05.2005 and they had continued in that capacity till the date they were regularly appointed in the said post. There is no dispute that in terms of the employment notification dated 16.08.2006 all the petitioners had applied for the regular post of Staff Nurse and accordingly, all the petitioners were appointed on fixed pay basis in the regular establishment. The said engagement was time to time extended by the orders which are not under challenge. Finally, by the order under No.F.2(1-162)-MS/Estt/2002 dated 18.12.2008 [Annexure-10 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.806 of 2018] the engagement of the petitioners to the post of Staff Nurse was extended until further order on the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the appointment letter contained in the memorandum dated 16.05.2007 [Annexure-8 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.806 of 2018]. Thereafter, by the order under No.F.5(1-196)-MS/ESTT/2007 dated 08.08.2012 [Annexure-12 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.806 of 2018] all the petitioners who were appointed on fixed pay basis against the post created under the notification No.F.2(1-13)-MS/Estt/2006 dated 03.08.2006 with the concurrence of the Finance Department were allowed to the scale of pay of Rs.5310-24000/- in the Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- with from the date as reflected in the column No.5 of the order said dated 08.08.2012. In the said order itself, the date of the appointment of the petitioners on fixed pay basis was shown under column No.4. These figures relating to their appointment on fixed pay basis and the release of their regular pay scale on completion of 5 years of service are not under challenge from any corner. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that prior to 01.08.2007, the petitioners had served but the said period has not been accepted as a part of their service arbitrarily. Further, he has submitted that the said period ought to have been considered as a part of the fixed pay service and then the regular pay scale would have been released after completion of 5 years from the date of their initial appointment on fixed pay basis by virtue order dated 07.05.2005. But the said prayer was rejected by the communication dated 22.10.2011, [Annexure-11 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.806 of 2018]. In the said communication, the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura has observed that a proposal was sent to the Finance Department to provide time scale benefit in respect of 19 Nos. nursing personnel including the petitioners by counting the period from which they were engaged as Staff Nurse under the Health and Family Welfare Department but the Finance Department regretted their inability to concur the said proposal of the Health Department by their UO No.1905/Fin(G)/11 dated 23.03.2011. Based on the said opinion as tendered by the Finance Department, the representation filed by one of the petitioners, namely Debasis Saha was rejected and Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that similar representations filed by all the writ petitioners were also rejected.