BARINDRA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner Barindra Ghosh was initially appointed as work charged Jogali on 06. 12. 73 in the Public Works Department, Government of Tripura. After the continuous service since then for a period of 4 years 11 months and 20 days, he was appointed on 22. 11. 78 as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Chief Engineer, PWD. Thus, he came to be an employee under the regular establishment. On 20. 10. 81, the State respondents in the Public Works Department framed rules with a view to transfer all the existing work charged employees of that department to the regular establishment. As per the said rules, 1049 number of work charged employees shown in the schedule attached to the said rules were transferred to the regular establishment with regular scale of pay. Regarding the period of service they rendered as work charged employee it has been provided in Rule 5 (2) of the said rules that such period shall count to the same extent as regular service for the purpose of pension, gratuity or other retiral benefits. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been denied the benefits available under the above rules only on the ground that he was brought to the regular establishment before the said rules came into force and that the benefits of the said rules were intended only for those existing 1049 work charged employees who were in position on the date of coming into force of the said rules. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents concerned to extend the benefit of the said rules to him also.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit, the respondents admitted that the petitioner was appointed as work charged employee in 1973 and he was brought to the regular establishment by appointing him as Lower Division Clerk on 22. 11. 78. It has also been admitted that he could not be given the retiral benefit of period he spent in the work charged establishment, as given to those came to be brought to the regular establishment later by means of the rules of 1981. In view of the limited scope of the said rules, it is contended that the benefit of the same could not be extended to the petitioner and others who were brought to the regular establishment before that date.