PRAFULLA CHANDRA BHOWMIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala on 7.12.1983 and 24.3.1983 in Case No. T.S. 61 of 1991.

(2.) The plaintiff Shri Prafulla Chandra Bhowmik filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge. West Tripura, Agartala claiming the relief that a decree be passed declaring the plaintiff to be entitled to be re-instated in service w.e.f. 09.2.1959 with all benefits attached to the Senior Clerk and to treat the period between 9.2.59 and 13.9.78 as spent on duty for all purposes. The plaintiff claims a sum of Rs 2 lakhs as arrear pay and allowances. The case of the plaintiff-appellant, in short, is that he was a displaced person from the erstwhile Pakistan and migrated in India in 1950. He was initially appointed on temporary basis as L.D.C. by the Director of Civil Supplies, Govt. of Tripura in 1951. After expiry of his temporary period of service as L.D.C. he was appointed by the then Chief Commissioner, Tripura as Clerk in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department in the scale of pay oF Rs 50-3-75 on 01.05.1951. However, his pay was fixed at Rs.75A w.e.f. 05.10.1951. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Asstt. Supervisor which is equivalent to the post of U.D.C. from 25.4.1953 in the scale of pay of Rs.80-04-100/-. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in the scale of pay of Rs. 130-5-180/- on 14.10.1958. Thus, the plaintiff-Appellant was in continuous service in the Relief and Rehabilitation Department from 01.8.1951 and he continued in the post of Senior Clerk without any interruption till 08.02.1959 to the satisfaction of the authority.

(3.) On 09.02.59 the Director of Relief and Rehabilitation DePartment terminated the service of the plaintiff-appellant under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949. The plaintiff filed writ petition in the court of the then Judicial Commissioner, Tripura under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the termination order. The Judicial Commissioner, Tripura in Writ Petition No. 2/1961 dismissed the petition by his judgiment and order dated 30.7.1962. However, the Learned Judicial Commissioner made certain observation in the jugment stating that the plaintiff's case has not been dealt with in accordance with the instructions contained in the various official memorandums issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and! that he has been unfairly treated aid has been made to lose his job without considering his case for quasi perms nency and giving him an opportunity to improve his work and conduct (if tha: were found bad) as required by the said instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Consequently, the Learned Judicial Commissioner farther observed that though this Court cannot interfere with the termination of service of the petitioner as it has tteen done in accordance with Rule 5 of the Temporary Service Rules, it has to be pointed out that the instnu tions contained in the office memorandum of the Ministry of Home Affairs having not been duly followed in the case of the petitioner and he has not been given a chance of obtaining quasi permanency inspite of his 7 and odd years of service the Learned Judicial Commissioner, therefore, expressed his liope that the plaintiff-petitioner's case will be given due consideration by the Tripura Administration. Thereafter the plaintiff submitted number of representations to the Government for consideration of his case in the light of the judgment passed by the Learned Judicial Commissioner on 30th July, 1962. Ultimately, the plaintiff was re-instated in service on 16.9.1978. The further case of the plaintiff is that (he proforma defendants were also terminated under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, but the State Govt. re-instated them in service; with all benefits including arrear pay and allowances. In this way the plaintiff was discriminated and as such he has entitled to all service benefits during the period of his termination on 9.2.59 and the date of re-instatement on 16.9.79. On reinstatement, the service of the plaintiff was extended and ultimately he retired from the service on 31.3.81 without any pension and pensionary benefits. The Learned Additional Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that he was appointed afresh on 16.9.78 and rejected the prayer to treat his service between 9.2.59 and 16.9.78 as a period spent on duty for all purposes. Having felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge in Title Suit No.61 of 1991, the Plaintiff filed the present appeal.