MALIN KANTA PAUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned judgment and order, dated 09.08.2002, passed in WP(C) No. 62/ 2000, the Writ petition has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has, now, preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Can the terms and conditions of the service of a Government servant, unlike that of an employee in a private sector, be altered unilaterally by the statutory or constitutional authority concerned? If so, whether such alteration can be made with retrospective effect and if so, what is the extent of such powers ? Will the power to amend the conditions of service retrospectively include the power to take away or abridge, with retrospective effect, those rights, which have already accrued to the Government employee under the existing rules and before the amendment was introduced ? Whether the Writ of mandamus, issued in a given case, can be superseded by the Government and if so, how and to what extent ? What was the real question, which the WP(C) No.62/2000, had raised for determination and whether the learned single Judge has, on 09.08.2000, correctly disposed of the Writ application? Did Rule 55A, introduced in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972, as adopted, in the State of Tripura, by virtue of Notification, dated 02.07.1992, issued by the Government of Tripura, vest in the Government servants any legal and/or fundamental right to receive Dear- ness Relief? What was the real controversy in Civil Rule No. 259/1995 ? Has the impugned Notification, dated 27.10.1998, brought, now, any change to what was read and understood in Civil Rule No. 259/1995 ? How the said Pensioners' Association justify, in Civil Rule No. 259/1995, their demand for payment of Deamess Relief at the rate fixed by the Central Government and why did the Court issue Mandamus therein ? By virtue of the Notification, dated 27.10.98, published by the Government of Tripura, whether the Government of Tripura has altered the legal and factual foundations of the Writ of mandamus issued, on 22.04.97, in CRNo.259/ 95 and upheld, on 25.06.97, in WA No. 330/ 97, and whether the mandamus, so issued, has become ineffective in consequence of the Notification, dated 27-10-1998, aforementioned ? These are the moot questions, which this writ appeal has raised.

(3.) This appeal has a history. As history is not merely a collection of the events of the past, but a connecting-link between the past and the present, so is this appeal. We are, therefore, required to not merely assemble together the events of the past leading to the present appeal, but also to explore if there is a connecting-link between the events of the past and the present appeal and if so, whether the Mandamus issued in the past still, notwithstanding the changes introduced presently, hold good.