JAGDISH CHANDRA ROY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Jagadish Ch. Roy (since deceased) challenged the order dated 12.1.1994 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner seeking pensionary benefits and also sought for a direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner pensionary benefits.

(2.) The petitioner entered in service as Assistant teacher in Pragati Vidya Bhavan, a Govt. aided private school on 23.3.1974 while the petitioner's date of birth was as on 1.1.1920. The petitioner's service at the relevant time was governed by the Union Territories Government Aided Schools Teachers Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Insurance-cum-Pension Rules, 1965 (herein after called "Triple Benefit Scheme"). Under the aforesaid scheme, a teacher of a Govt. aided school would go on retirement on completion of 60 years and the authority may in exceptional cases grant extension of service, but not beyond the age of 65 years subject to physical fitness of the incumbent concerned. That provision of triple benefit scheme issued vide memorandum dated 19.11.1973 has been amended vide memorandum dated 29.9.1977 whereby the power of the authority to extend the service of such teacher in exceptional circumstances was made upto the age of 62 years subject to physical fitness and mental alertness of the teacher. So from 29.9.1977 the maximum extension of service was made permissible not exceeding 62 years. The petitioner was to go on superannuation on completion of his 60 years of age on 31.12.1979, but on petition the service of the petitioner was extended by two years upto 31.12.1981, that is he was allowed by the authority to continue in service upto the age of 62 years. The petitioner applied for further extension of three years service to the authority but the authority rejected his petition vide order dated 17.12.1981 and thus being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Title Suit bearing No. 384 of 1981 in the court of learned Munsiff, Sadar, Agartala along with a temporary injunction petition bearing No. Misc. case 474 of 1981 seeking a temporary injunction to be granted restraining the respondents from retiring the petitioner from service till disposal of the suit. Exparte temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner and subsequently on hearing, the said temporary injunction order was made absolute on 29.11.1982 and in this way the petitioner continued in service till he attained the age of 65 years upto 13.12.1984. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 10.5.1989 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition). The learned trial court by the aforesaid judgment and decree held that the plaintiff-petitioner continued in service beyond 31.12.1981 by virtue of the exparte temporary injunction issued in the aforesaid Misc. case No. 474 of 1981, which was subsequently made absolute, but the petitioner failed to establish his right to be retained in service after the completion of his 62 years of age and thus the aforesaid suit was dismissed. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner in that case prayed for counting the extended period of three years beyond 62 years being a period for qualifying service so as the petitioner would get the benefit under triple benefit scheme. Under the aforesaid scheme, the petitioner was entitled to get pension only in case he could complete minimum ten years of service. Though the learned Govt. Pleader allowed concession having left the matter with the court to treat the said period of three years as qualifying service, but the learned court having disagreed with the learned Govt. Pleader was declined to pass order directing the respondents to allow the pensionary benefits to the plaintiffs-petitioner as according to the learned trial court, it would be beyond its jurisdiction. However, the learned trial court directed the defendant-respondents not to trecover the pay and allowances paid to the plaintiff-petitioner for rendering his service beyond 62 years as the petitioner having availed of the benefit of temporary injunction order served for the aforesaid period of three years. The learned trial court also left the matter with the authority to consider if any pensionary benefit could be granted to the plaintiff- petitioner under the Rules in force. Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner made representation which stood rejected vide order dated 17.1.1994 by the Director of School Education, Tripura as already stated.

(3.) The admitted position of the case is that the petitioner just completed 7 years 9 months 8 days of service till he attained the age of 62 years on 31.12.1981 Though in normal course the petitioner had 10 go on retirement two years earlier that is on 31.12.1979, but as two years service was extended by the authority as permissible under the triple benefit scheme, he could complete 7 years 9 months 8 days of service.