Dr. Sumanta Chakrabarti vs The Union of India and 3 others
- Court
- Tripura High Court
TRHC010000422025
2026:THC:1453
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.11 of 2025
Dr. Sumanta Chakrabarti, S/O Late Hiranmoy Chakrabarti,
resident of 65, Hari Ganga Basak Road, opposite Melarmath
State Bank, near Women Commission, Melarmath, PO-
Agartala, PS-West Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799001.
------ Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource & Development , Government
of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The National Institute of Technology Agartala (NITA),
Represented by its Registrar, PO & PS:- Jirania, District-West
Tripura, Pin-799046.
3. The Registrar, The National Institute of Technology
Agartala (NITA) , PO & PS:-Jirania, District- West Tripura,
Pin-799046.
4. The Director, The National Institute of Technology
Agartala (NITA) , PO&PS:- Jirania, District - West Tripura,
Pin-799046.
------ Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv,
Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, Adv,
Mr. Agniva Chakrabarti, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, D.S.G.I.,
Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Adv,
Ms. Adwitiya Chakraborty, Adv.
Date of hearing : 27.08.2026
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 15.10.2026
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Purusuttam Roy
Barman, assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Koomar Chakraborty
Page 2 of 25
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and also heard learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Somik Deb, assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr.
Agniva Chakrabarti appearing on behalf of NIT-respondent Nos. 2
to 4, and further heard learned D.S.G.I., Mr. Bidyut Mujumder
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the
following relief/ reliefs:
i. Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one
of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari
and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued,
directing them, to transmit the records, lying with them,
for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the
Petitioner, and for quashing/setting aside the impugned
Letters dated 16.04.2024, 29.08.2024 & 04.09.2024
(Annexure-11, 14 & 15 respectively supra);
ii. Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one
of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus
and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued,
mandating/directing them, to act in strict conformity
with the directions, contained in the Judgment & Order
dated 31.05.2021 (Annexure-3 supra), passed in WP(C)
No.1298 of 2017 by the Learned Single Judge of this
Hon’ble High Court, read with the observations, made in
the Judgment & Order (Oral) dated 02.08.2023
(Annexure-4 supra), passed in WA No.200 of 2021 by the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court, as
affirmed vide the Order dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure-13
supra), passed in SLP(Civil) Diary No.31104/2024 by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, thereby depositing the
actual Prorata Pension Contribution of Rs.38,71,637/-
and Leave Salary of Rs.32,86,536/- with the Petitioner’s
current employer (i.e., Maharaja Bir Bikram University,
Agartala) and make payment of Rs.13,44,252/- on
account of Gratuity to the Peitioner, alongwith Interest
thereon (due to belated payment thereof);
iii. Call for the records, appertaining to this Writ Petition;
iv. After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule
absolute in terms of (i) & (ii) above;
v. Costs of and incidental to this proceeding
vi. Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon’ble High Court may
deem fit and proper;
AND
For this gracious act of kindness the humble petitioner
abovenamed shall as in duty bound ever pray.
3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Senior Counsel first
of all drawn the attention of the Court that the petitioner is
Page 3 of 25
presently serving as Registrar, Maharaja Bir Bikram University,
Agartala. Initially, the petitioner was an employee of Tripura State
Pollution Control Board under the Department of Science,
Technology & Environment, Government of Tripura, and joined
therein on 16.03.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed
to the post of Deputy Registrar (Administration), National Institute
of Technology Agartala (NITA for short), and joined therein on
12.08.2011. After that, in the year 2017, i.e. on 01.03.2017, he
joined as Registrar, MBB University, Agartala. It was further
submitted by Learned Senior Counsel that pursuant to an open
advertisement dated 06.09.2010, published by NITA, vide an
Order of Appointment dated 21.07.2011, the petitioner was
appointed to the post of Deputy Registrar, NITA and he joined in
the said post on 12.08.2011. And after joining, the petitioner had
been discharging his duties and responsibilities with due integrity,
sincerity and diligence and to the utmost satisfaction of the higher
Authority, and thereafter, the NITA vide memo dated 04.12.2012
issued by Director, NITA [Annexure-1] , absorbed and confirmed
him in the post of Deputy Registrar (Administration), NITA with
effect from the date of his joining, i.e. 12.08.2011 providing that
he will get all pensionary benefits, leave, etc in counting his
earlier service. Thereafter, the Director, NITA issued one
memorandum on 23.07.2013 [Annexure-2] mentioning that the
services of the petitioner shall be governed by the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 and CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, and he is entitled to
Page 4 of 25
get the benefits of counting his past services with effect from
16.03.1996 to 11.08.2011 for all purposes of leave and
pensionary benefits including Gratuity, etc without realization of
pensionary or leave salary contribution of his previous employer.
Learned Senior Counsel thereafter submitted that as
the NITA refused to provide service benefits to him so against the
arbitrary action of the respondents-NITA, the petitioner initially
filed one writ petition bearing No.WP(C) 1298 of 2017 before this
High Court and a coordinate bench of this High Court allowed the
said writ petition by a judgment and order dated 31.05.2021
[Annexure-3] .
Challenging the said judgment, the respondents
preferred one Intra-Court appeal before the Division Bench of this
High Court bearing No.WA 200 of 2021 and this High Court by
Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2023 [Annexure-4] dismissed
the said appeal preferred by the respondents. It was further
submitted that after passing of the said Judgment and Order
dated 02.08.2023, the petitioner served one legal notice on
11.09.2023 [Annexure-5] to the respondents for compliance of
the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2023. After receipt of the
notice, NITA by letter dated 16.10.2023 [Annexure-6] asked the
petitioner to arrange for submission of the authenticated
statement of the capitalized value of his pension and gratuity from
his previous employer i.e. Tripura State Pollution Control Board to
process the matter further. It was further submitted that after
Page 5 of 25
passing of the judgment and order dated 02.08.2023, the
petitioner further submitted a letter dated 26.09.2023 and
thereafter a reminder letter dated 04.10.2023 to his employer,
i.e. to the Chairman, Tripura State Pollution Control Board praying
for supplying of an authenticated Statement of the capitalized
value of his pension and gratuity accrued during his service tenure
thereat. Copies of the letters dated 26.09.2023 and 04.10.2023
are annexed as Annexure-7 . Thereafter, vide letters dated
18.10.2023, 15.12.2023, the petitioner repeatedly requested the
respondents to comply with the directions contained in the
Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2021 and Judgment and Order
dated 02.08.2023 [Annexure-3 and 4] , but in vain. Thereafter, by
a letter dated 12.01.2024, the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government
of India supplied a detailed EPF statement of the petitioner to the
Member Secretary, Tripura State Pollution Control Board. After
that, the Member Secretary, Tripura State Pollution Control Board
forwarded the said statement under caption "Furnishing of
authenticated statement in respect of Capitalized value of pension
and gratuity and transfer of other retirement benefits-reg” to the
petitioner. Thereafter, by another letter dated 26.02.2024 the
petitioner submitted the same to the respondents praying for
implementation of the Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2021 and
Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2023 [Annexure-3 and 4 supra] .
But the respondents, inspite of receipt of communications did not
Page 6 of 25
comply with the same. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted
another letter dated 02.04.2024 [Annexure-10] , informing the
respondents that if no action is taken, he will be under obligation
to file contempt petition. After that, the Registrar, NITA issued a
letter dated 16.04.2024 denying the petitioner to grant pension
and gratuity on the premise that the aforesaid authenticated
statement was not proper. Furthermore, by the said letter dated
16.04.2024 [Annexure-11] it was further informed to the
petitioner that the other reliefs as granted by this Court viz.
fixation of pay, refunding of GPF contribution with 7% interest and
recording acquisition of PhD degree in his service book were under
process. But even after clear and unambiguous direction of this
High Court, directing the respondents to pay litigation cost of
Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner, the respondents did not make any
payment thereof. Even in the communication dated 16.04.2024
[Annexure-11 supra] , the respondents did not even utter a word
in connection therewith. Thereafter, again by letter dated
30.04.2024, the petitioner requested the respondents to comply
with the direction contained in the Judgment and Order dated
31.05.2021 and Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2023, but
inspite of that no action was taken. Thus, the respondents willfully
abstained from complying with the same.
After that, the petitioner filed one contempt petition
bearing No.Cont. Cas(C) 39/2024 before this High Court on
31.05.2024 and in pursuance of filing of the said contempt
Page 7 of 25
petition, the respondents suddenly sprung into action and decided
to prefer a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India against the judgment of Division Bench of the High
Court, but by order dated 14.08.2024, the SLP filed by the
respondents-NITA was dismissed [Annexure-13] .
According to Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
all the legal remedies have been exhausted by the respondents.
In the meantime, during the pendency of contempt petition, the
respondents by issuing two separate communication dated
29.08.2024, 04.09.2024, [Annexures-14 and 15] , partly complied
with some of the directions, but refrained from complying with the
substantial portion of the relief as granted by this High Court
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thereafter, in
pursuance of the order of this Court passed in Cont. Cas(C)
39/2024, the petitioner further made reference to the
respondents, but the respondents by letter dated 04.09.2024,
[Annexure-15 supra] deliberately refuse to release the relevant
service benefits as directed by this High Court. It was further
submitted that the respondents have derogated the authority of
the Constitutional Courts with malafide intention by calculating
belligerently the petitioner's pro rata pension and leave salary
w.e.f. 12.08.2011 on a self-devised basis but while giving the
portion of Leave Salary and Pension Contribution, the respondents
did not follow the directions of this Court as affirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It was further submitted by
Page 8 of 25
Learned Senior Counsel that this Court directed the respondents
to count the past service of the petitioner w.e.f. 16.03.1996, in
accordance with the respondent's memorandum dated 23.07.2013
[Annexure-2 supra] which was verified, authenticated and
recorded by the successive Directors of NITA but the respondents
have calculated the pro rata pension and leave salary of the
petitioner with effect from 12.08.2011 on unsustainable basis, just
to evade the liabilities of the contempt proceeding before this High
Court.
4. It was further submitted that the Registrar, NITA
issued the impugned letter dated 04.09.2024 [Annexure-15
supra] to the petitioner towards pro rata pension contribution of
Rs.5,76,834/-, leave salary contribution Rs.3,96,815/- for the
period served by the petitioner at NITA i.e., for the period
stretching from 12.08.2011 to 28.02.2017, by Draft No.650375,
dated 04.09.2024 for an amount of Rs.9,67,694/- sheerly
deviating from the direction of the High Court as affirmed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India to provide pro rata pension
contribution and leave salary to the petitioner with effect from
16.03.1996. It was further submitted that while calculating the
pro rata pension contribution and leave salary, the respondents
did not calculate the period of service with effect from 16.03.1996
and thus did not deposit the pro rata contribution of pension and
leave salary for the period from 16.03.1996 to 11.08.2011. It was
further submitted that the respondents ought to have calculated
Page 9 of 25
the leave salary and pension contribution of the petitioner in stern
tune with FR 116 and FR 117. It was further submitted that the
last monthly pay of the petitioner was Rs.1,23,100/- as per NITA
office order dated 29.08.2024 on the date of leaving NITA for MBB
University on lien for two years [Annexure-18] . It was also
submitted that since the last pay of the petitioner was
Rs.1,23,100/- in accordance with the provisions of FR 116 and FR
117 and the said last pay ought to have been the basic pay for
calculation of pro rata pension and leave salary for the entire
service period of the petitioner, but the respondents deliberately
and willfully calculated the last pay wrongly in the basic pay
column for determination of leave salary and pro rata pension
contribution. Thus, actual pro rata pension contribution would
comes to Rs.38,71,637/- and leave salary contribution would
comes to Rs 32,86,536/-, which is to deposited to the MBB
University, and calculated sheets were marked as Annexures-19
and 20 . The petitioner was further entitled to Gratuity and as per
rules it comes to Rs.13,44,252/-, which is to be paid by the
respondents to the petitioner. The calculation sheet for Gratuity is
marked as Annexure-21 . So, as the grievance of the petitioner
was not addressed by the respondent-NITA, the petitioner has
again filed this writ petition.
5. The respondents-NITA have contested the writ petition
by filing counter affidavit. In para Nos.19 to 38 of the counter
affidavit, the respondents-NITA have stated as under:
Page 10 of 25
“19. That, with reference to the
statements/averments made in para 3.17 of the writ
petition, the answering respondents humbly submit
that NIT Agartala (NITA) has requested to the Tripura
State Pollution Control Board(TSPCB) and the
petitioner to arrange for submission of capitalized
value of the pension and gratuity in order to expedite
the disposal of the matter in accordance with the
directives of the Hon'ble Court.
20. That, the statements/averments made in para
3.17.1 of the writ petition, are false and hence denied
and disputed by the answering respondents as
because litigation cost of Rs. 25000/- has already
been paid to the petitioner vide letter dated
29.08.2024.
Copy of letter dated 29.08.2024 and Money receipt are
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- R/6.
21. That, with reference to the statements/averments
made in para 3.18 of the writ petition, the answering
respondents offer no comments since those are matter
of records. However, it is submitted that the
answering respondents have already clarified in their
letter dated 16.04.2024 to the petitioner that, in
accordance with the letter dated 16.02.2024 from the
petitioner's previous employer and the EPFO letter
dated 12.01.2024 that was received by NIT Agartala,
which indicates that petitioner was subscriber of EPF
and not GPF claimed by the petitioner. Thus capitalized
value of pension and gratuity from previous employer
of the petitioner is not available with NIT Agartala as
on date.
22. That, the statements/averments made in para 3.19
of the writ petition, are false, hence denied and
disputed by the answering respondents. It is humbly
submitted that the respondent (i.e. NITA) has already
complied with the direction of Hon'ble High Court of
Tripura and communicated the same vide letter dated
29.08.2024 as per the details given below:
a. The entry of obtaining degree of Ph.D in service
book has been complied based on the judgment of
Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in WP(C)
1298/2017.
b. Past service has been considered and
accordingly pay up-gradation/protection has been
given.
c. An amount of Rs. 14,75,078/- and Rs. 30,718/
towards GPF & GSLI Contribution respectively has
been credited in Institute Account under Pension
and Retirement Benefit Fund on 07.05.2024 from
LICI, Silchar vide GSCA No. 6535 and vide GSLI
Master Policy No. 65210.
d. Litigation cost of Rs. 25000/- already paid to the
petitioner vide our letter dated. 29.08.2024.
e. Leave salary contribution of petitioner has been
calculated @11% of Basic Pay in Pay Level drawn
in foreign service vide Appendix-2 of Deputation
and Foreign Service rules during his tenure at NIT
Agartala from 12.08.2011 to 28.02.2017.
f. Capitalized value of pension and gratuity from
previous employer of the petitioner with NIT
Agartala, the pro-rata calculation has been made
Page 11 of 25
(incompliance with WP (C) of 1298 of 2017) based
on his tenure at NIT Agartala from 12.08.2011 to
28.02.2017 and the rates of monthly contribution
expressed as percentage mentioned in Deputation
and Foreign Service rules vide GIO(2) & GIO(3)
Appendix-2.
Copy of letter dated 29.08.2024 is annexed herewith
and marked as annexure-R/7.
Copy of due-drawn statement is annexed herewith and
marked as annexure-R/8.
Copy of money receipt is annexed herewith and
marked as annexure-R/9.
Copy of leave salary calculation is annexed herewith
and marked as annexure-R/10.
Copy of rule provisions is annexed herewith and
marked as annexure-R/11.
Copy of Deputation and Foreign Service rules vide
GIO(2) is annexed herewith and marked as annexure-
R/12.
Copy of Deputation and Foreign Service rules vide
GIO(3) Appendix-2 is annexed herewith and marked
as annexure-R/13.
23. That, with reference to the statements/averments
made in para 3.20 of the writ petition, the answering
Respondents humbly submit that the directions of
Hon'ble Court has been complied.
24. That, with reference to the statements/averments
made in paras 3.21 and 3.22 of the writ petition, the
answering respondents offer no comments since those
are matter of records.
25. That, the statements/averments made in paras
3.23 of the writ petition, are denied and disputed by
the answering respondents. It is humbly submitted
that the respondents have already clarified in their
letter dated 16.04.2024 to the petitioner that, in
accordance with the letter dated 16.02.2024 from the
petitioner's previous employer and the EPFO letter
dated 12.01.2024 that was received by NIT Agartala,
which indicates that petitioner was subscriber of EPF
and not GPF claimed by the petitioner. Thus capitalized
value of pension and gratuity from previous employer
of the petitioner is not available with NIT Agartala as
on date. Therefore, due to lack of receipt of the same
from the previous employer of the petitioner, NITA is
not in a position to deposit the capitalized value of
pension and gratuity to the present employer of the
petitioner. i.e. MBB University. So the contention of the
petitioner is false and fabricated.
26. That, the statements/averments made in paras
3.27 of the writ petition, are denied and disputed by
the answering respondents. It is submitted that the
answering respondents strongly and stoutly deny the
contention made by the petitioner.
a. Respondents have entered PhD degree in
Service Book in compliance with the Judgment
passed in WP(C) 1298 of 2017
b. Respondents also considered the past service
of the Petitioner and pay protection/up-gradation
has been extended to the petitioner.
Page 12 of 25
c. An amount of Rs. 14,75,078/- and Rs. 30,718/-
towards GPF & GSLI Contribution respectively has
been has been paid to the petitioner which was
received from LICI, Silchar vide GSCA No. 6535
and vide GSLI Master Policy No. 65210.
d. Interest @ 7% from date of Credit has been
paid adding GPF and GSLI amount, through
Demand Draft No. 650365 dated 29.08.2024 to
the petitioner.
e. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been paid as
Cost of litigation to the Petitioner.
27. That, with reference to the statements/averments
made in para 3.28 of the writ petition, the answering
respondents offer no comments since those are matter
of records.
28. That, the statements/averments made in para 3.29
of the writ petition, are denied and disputed by the
answering respondents.
29. That, with reference to the statements/averments
made in paras 3.30 and 3.31 of the writ petition, the
answering respondents offer no comments since those
are matter of records.
30. That, the statements/averments made in para 3.32
of the writ petition, are strongly denied and disputed
by the answering respondents. It is humbly submitted
that respondents have entered PhD degree in Service
Book in compliance with the Judgment passed in
WP(C) 1298 of 2017. Respondents also considered the
past service of the Petitioner and pay protection. An
amount of Rs. 14,75,078/- and Rs. 30,718/- towards
GPF & GSLI Contribution respectively has been
credited in Institute Account under Pension and
Retirement Benefit Fund on 07.05.2024 from LICI,
Silchar vide GSCA No. 6535 and vide GSLI Master
Policy No. 65210. Interest from date of Credit has
been paid adding GPF and GSLI amount, through
Demand Draft No. 650365 dated. 29.08.2024. An
amount of Rs. 25,000/ has been paid as Cost of
litigation to the Petitioner.
31. That, with reference to the statements/averments
made in paras 3.33 of the writ petition, the answering
respondents submit that the calculation of total leave
salary has been enclosed herewith.
32. That, the statements/averments made in paras
3.34 of the writ petition, are false and hence denied
and disputed by the answering respondents.
33. That, with reference to the statements/averments
made in paras 3.35 of the writ petition, the answering
respondents humbly submit that capitalized value of
pension and gratuity has been calculated on the basis
of documents receipt from previous employer of the
petitioner.
34. That, the statements/averments made in paras
3.36 the writ petition, are strongly denied and
disputed by the answering respondents. It is humbly
submitted that the respondents have entered PhD
degree in Service Book in compliance with the
Judgment passed in WP(C) 1298 of 2017. Respondents
also considered the past service of the Petitioner and
pay protection. An amount of Rs. 14,75,078/- and
Rs.30,718/- towards GPF & GSLI Contribution
Page 13 of 25
respectively has been credited in Institute Account
under Pension and Retirement Benefit Fund on
07.05.2024 from LICI, Silchar vide GSCA No. 6535 and
vide GSLI Master Policy No. 65210. Interest from date
of Credit has been paid adding GPF and GSLI amount,
through Demand Draft No. 650365 dated. 29.08.2024.
An amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been paid as Cost of
litigation to the Petitioner.
35. That, with reference to the statements/averments
made in paras 3.37 of the writ petition, the answering
respondents humbly submit that capitalized value of
pension and gratuity from his previous employer. Dues
have been paid as per documents receipt.
36. That, with reference to the statements/averments
made in paras 3.38 of the writ petition, the answering
respondents humbly submit that the petitioner was
asked to submit capitalized value of pension and
gratuity from his previous employer, but the petitioner
yet to submit the same till date.
37. That, the statements/averments made in paras
3.39 of the writ petition, are strongly denied and
disputed by the answering respondents. It is humbly
submitted that the respondents have entered PhD
degree in Service Book in compliance with the
Judgment passed in WP(C) 1298 of 2017. Respondents
also considered the past service of the Petitioner and
pay protection. An amount of Rs. 14,75,078/- and Rs.
30,718/- towards GPF & GSLI Contribution
respectively has been credited in Institute Account
under Pension and Retirement Benefit Fund on
07.05.2024 from LICI, Silchar vide GSCA No.6535 and
vide GSLI Master Policy No. 65210. Interest from date
of Credit has been paid adding GPF and GSLI amount,
through Demand Draft No. 650365 dated. 29.08.2024.
An amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been paid as Cost of
litigation to the Petitioner.
38. That, the statements/averments made in paras
3.40, 3.41 and 3.42 of the writ petition, are strongly
denied and disputed by the answering respondents. It
is humbly submitted that the respondents have
entered PhD degree in Service Book in compliance
with the Judgment passed in WP(C) 1298 of 2017.
Respondents also considered the past service of the
Petitioner and pay protection. An amount of Rs.
14,75,078/- and Rs. 30,718/- towards GPF & GSLI
Contribution respectively has been credited in
Institute Account under Pension and Retirement
Benefit Fund on 07.05.2024 from LICI, Silchar vide
GSCA No. 6535 and vide GSLI Master Policy No. 65210.
Interest from date of Credit has been paid adding GPF
and GSLI amount, through Demand Draft No. 650365
dated. 29.08.2024. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- has
been paid as Cost of litigation to the Petitioner.
Petitioner was asked to submit capitalized value of
pension and gratuity from his previous employer, but
the Petitioner yet to submit the same till date.”
6. It was further submitted that Tripura State Pollution
Control Board was a necessary party for the decision of this writ
petition, but the petitioner has not impleaded the said Tripura
Page 14 of 25
State Pollution Control Board as party in this case, as such the
same is liable to be dismissed.
7. However, at the time of hearing Learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. Somik Deb appearing on behalf of the respondents-
NITA referring para Nos.38 and 44 of the Judgment and Order
dated 31.05.2021 in connection with case No.WP(C) 1298/2017
passed by this High Court submitted that in the said para No.38 it
was mentioned that in the event of allowing the petitioner to get
the Revision under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the petitioner
is also liable to be deposit the capitalized value of pension and
gratuity for the first service in accordance with the instruction
contained in the office memorandum No.28/10/84-Pension Unit
dated 29.08.1984 as referred in para No.7 of the office
memorandum dated 11.06.2020, and it was further directed that
the petitioner shall submit the authenticated statement in respect
of capitalized value of pension and gratuity from his previous
employer within a period of three months from the date of
judgment, but that has not been complied with by the petitioner.
8. Further, referring the Judgment and Order dated
02.08.2023 in connection with case No.WA 200 of 2021 delivered
by Division Bench of this High Court, Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.
Deb submitted that although the Division Bench of this High Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents but the direction
contained in para No.38 delivered by Learned Single Judge was
upheld and until and unless the petitioner supplies the
Page 15 of 25
authenticated statement in respect of capitalized value of pension
and gratuity from his previous employer, he was not entitled to
get any further benefit in this regard. However, in pursuance of
the judgment delivered by the Learned Single Judge affirmed in
appeal by the Division Bench, all the financial benefits have been
released by the NITA in favour of the petitioner and as such, the
present petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit in this writ
petition and prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
9. Learned D.S.G.I., Mr. Bidyut Majumder also reiterated
the same submission made by Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Deb
appearing on behalf of the respondent-NITA and submitted that as
all the financial benefits have been granted and released in favour
of the present petitioner, as such, he is not entitled to get any
further benefit in this writ petition and urged for dismissal of the
same.
10. I have heard both the sides. Perused the writ petition
along with the documents annexed by the petitioner as well as the
counter affidavit and the relevant documents filed by the
respondents, and also the Judgment and Order delivered by
Division Bench of this High Court as well as the Judgment and
Order delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India.
11. Since the subject matter of the writ petition has
already been discussed in detail above, so the same needs no
repetition. Admittedly, in this case the petitioner was serving
under Tripura State Pollution Control Board for a certain period of
Page 16 of 25
time and thereafter he joined in NITA as a Deputy Registrar
(Administration) and served therein for a considerable period and
after that he joined as Registrar, MBB University, Agartala,
Tripura. Regarding initial designation and later designation of the
petitioner, there was no dispute on record from the side of the
respondents-NITA. The respondents-NITA also did not dispute his
tenure of service under Tripura State Pollution Control Board,
thereafter at NITA and after that, to the post of Registrar, MBB
University, Agartala, Tripura.
12. Now, for the sake of convenience let us reproduce
herein below the initial memorandum dated 04.12.2012
[Annexure-1] issued by Director, NITA:
No.NITA.2 (335-Estt)/2011/8516-19 04/12/2012
MEMORANDUM
In response to the National Institute of Technology
Agartala ((NITA) offer of Appointment letter vide No.
F.NITA.2(166-Estt)/11/2478-82 dated 21.07.2011 and
being released by the Member Secretary, Tripura State
Pollution Control Board under Department of Science,
Technology & Environment, Government of Tripura
vide Order No. F. 1(8) /TSPCB/96/3851-52 dated
11.08.2011 Sti Sumanta Chakrabarti S/O Sri Hiranmay
Chakrabarti joined NITA as Deputy
Registrar(Administration) on August 12,2011
(Forenoon) in the revised pay of PB-3 (Rs.15,600-
Rs.39,100) GP-Rs.7600 on lien of one year from his
parent department and the pay was protected
counting his previous service from the date of joining
in NITA w.e.f 12.08.2011. As per terms and condition
of the offer of appointment Sri Chakrabarti has
successfully completed one year probationary period.
Sri Chakrabarti is hereby absorbed and declared
confirmed by the competent authority in the post of
Deputy Registrar (Administration), NITA in the revised
pay PB-3 (Rs.15,600-Rs.39,100) GP-Rs.7600. He will
get all pensionary benefit, leave etc. in counting his
earlier service subject to the availability of service
book and other related documents.
(Prof (Dr.) P. K. Bose)
Director
Copy to:
1. PS to Director, NITA.
Page 17 of 25
2. Sri Sumanta Chakrabarti, Deputy
Registrar(Administration), NITA.
3. The Member Secretary, Tripura State Pollution
Control Board under Department of Science,
Technology & Environment, Government of Tripura
with a request to send the Service Book along with
other service related papers of Sri Chakrabarti at an
early date.
4. Assistant Registrar (Finance), NITA for information
with a request to deduct monthly GPF subscription of
Sri Chakrabarti @ Rs.6000/pm and deposit the same to
his GPF account of NITA presently maintained by LICI
from the salary month of December, 2012 onwards.
The provident fund contribution so credited up to
November, 2012 towards his account may be
withdrawn from NITA account and deposit the same in
to his LICI GPF account.
(Prof (Dr.) P. K. Bose)
Director
After that, the Director, NITA issued another
memorandum on 23.07.2013 [Annexure-2], which is also
reproduced herein below:
No.F.NITA.2(335-Estt)/2011/4204-05 July 23 2013.
MEMORANDUM
Shri Sumanta Chakrabarti, Deputy Registrar
(Administration), NIT Agartala, was declared absorbed
and confirmed in the post of Deputy Registrar (Admn)
in NIT Agartala from the date of joining in NIT
Agartala w.e.f. 12-08-2011 protecting his pay and
counting his earlier service vide Memo
No.F.NITA.2(335-Estt)/2011/8516-19 dated 04-12-
2012.
2. The service book and other related documents in
respect of Shri Chakrabarti have been received from
his previous employer. The services of Shri
Chakrabarti shall governed by CCS (Pension) Rules
1972 and CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and he is entitled to
have the benefits counting his past services w.e.f.
16/3/1996 to 11/8/2011 for all purposes of leave and
pensionery benefits including gratuity etc. without
realisation of pensionery or leave salary contribution
from his previous employer vide Government of India
decision NO.5 below Rule 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972.
(Dr. A.K. Chakraborty)
Director (i/c)
Copy to:
1. Shri Sumanta Chakrabarti, Deputy Registrar
(Admn), NIT Agartala, for information.
2. The Asst. Registrar (Fin), NITA, for information and
necessary action.
Director (i/c)
Page 18 of 25
So, from the aforesaid memorandum, it appears that
the present petitioner was absorbed and confirmed in the post of
Deputy Registrar (Administration), NITA, from the date of joining
in NITA, i.e., w.e.f. 12.08.2011 protecting his pay and earlier
service. It was further ensured in the said memorandum that the
services of the petitioner shall be governed by CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 and CCS (Leave) Rules,1972 and he will be entitled to
have the benefits counting his past services w.e.f. 16.03.1996 to
11.08.2011 for all purposes of leave and pensionary benefits
including gratuity, etc without realization of pensionary or leave
salary contribution from his previous employer vide Government
of India decision No.5 below Rule 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972.
13. From the language of the said memorandums, it is
crystal clear that once he absorbed in NITA, his previous employer
i.e. Tripura State Pollution Control Board had no role regarding
further governing his service. So, whatever benefit the petitioner
will accrue should be paid by NITA. The said memorandum has
not been nullified by NITA at any point of time.
14. In course of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents-NITA did not submit anything challenging the said
memorandums dated 04.12.2012 [Annexure-1] and 23.07.2013
[Annexure-2] , and those memorandums till today have not been
challenged. Rather both the memorandums attained finality. Even
Page 19 of 25
NITA also did not challenge those memorandums by filing any
separate writ petition.
15. However, as the service benefit was not extended to
the petitioner, so, he was compelled to file writ petition in the year
2017 which was numbered as WP(C) 1298 of 2017 and a
coordinate bench of this High Court by Judgment and Order dated
31.05.2021, allowed and disposed of the writ petition in favour of
the present petitioner.
In para Nos.38, 39, 40, 41, 44 and 48 of the said
Judgment and Order, the coordinate bench of this High Court
made the following observations:
“38. Having read the decision of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court with para-7 of the Office
Memorandum dated 11.06.2020, this Court is
persuaded to declare that the said decision to not
allow the petitioner to have pension under the
CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and to maintain the account
under the Central Provident Fund (Central Services)
Rules, 1960 is arbitrary and unsustainable. In the
event of allowing the petitioner to get the Revision
under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the petitioner is
also liable to deposit the capitalized value of pension
and gratuity for the first service in accordance with
the instruction contained in the office memorandum
No.28/10/84-Pension Unit dated 29.08.1984 as
referred in para-7 of the Office Memorandum dated
11.06.2020. On deposit of the said amount, the
respondents shall be under obligation to allow the pro-
rata pension to the petitioner in terms of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 within a period of six months
from the date of the deposit of capitalized value of
pension and gratuity of the past services. For this
purpose, the petitioner shall submit to the
respondents, particularly to the respondent No.3, the
authenticated statement in respect of capitalized value
of pension and gratuity from his previous employer
within a period of three months from the date of the
judgment. The respondents may also give the pension
and gratuity after deduction of the capitalized value of
the pension and gratuity of the past service without
asking the petitioner to deposit the said value in terms
of the above.
39. Thus, for the reasons assigned above, the
petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pension under
CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and for the same reason he
was entitled to maintain the Central Provident Fund.
The benefits granted to the petitioner by the
Page 20 of 25
memorandum dated 04.02.2012 was regular but the
conditions were not properly delineated. There was no
illegality as has been declared later on by the
respondents.
40. This Court is not interested to explore whether the
Director-in-charge had any power to take any decision
or issue the memorandum dated 23.07.2013. The
extent of power of the Director-in-charge has not been
demonstrated by the respondents. In the usual course,
the person-in-charge of the Director may exercise all
the powers unless prohibited by the rules or the
executive order/s. Moreover, by the doctrine of
necessity, if some decisions are to be taken by the
person-in-charge for the administrative reasons, such
decision cannot be stated by the successor as without
authority, unless, of course, manifest and patent
illegality is attributed to such decision. In the present
case, as it has been observed, the court is not
confronted with a case of that nature.
41. On the issue of denying of the up-graded pay scale
in PB-4 with GP of Rs.8,700/- on completion of five
years of service in the pre-revised pay scale of
Rs.12,000-18,300/- or in the revised pay of PB-3 with
GP of Rs.7,800/-, the respondents have stated that the
petitioner lacks in qualification as he had no post-
graduate degree. In this regard, the petitioner has
referred to a communication of MHRD dated
02.11.2017 addressed to the Secretary, University
Grants Commission. The relevant part of the said
communication reads as follows:
“The pay of all incumbent Deputy
Registrar/Deputy Finance Officer/Deputy
Controller of Examination, who are presently in
Pay Band of Rs.15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay
of Rs.7,600/-, shall be fixed at the appropriate
cell in Level 12 of the Pay Matrix in accordance
with guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance,
th
based on the recommendation of 7 Central Pay
Commission, as the case may be. The pay of all
those who have completed 5 years of service as
Deputy Registrar/Deputy Finance Officer/Deputy
Controller of Examination and are presently in
pre-revised pay scale of Rs.37,400-67,000/- with
Grade Pay of Rs.8,700/- shall be fixed at the
appropriate cell in Level 13 of the Pay Matrix in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Finance, based on the
th
recommendation of 7 Central Pay Commission,
as the case may be.”
The said communication refers to the upgradation to
the higher pay with higher grade pay. It clarifies the
earlier approach. Earlier approach as referred by the
respondents here was erroneous as inasmuch as in the
same grade or post on the basis of the educational
qualification, there cannot be two different scales as
that would contravene Article 14 read with Article
39(d) of the Constitution of India subject to certain
conditions [see Harbans Lal versus State of H.P. :
(1989) 4 SCC 459] which enshrine the constitutional
goal of equal pay for equal work.
44. Arrears pay that would accrue in favour of the
petitioner for fixing his pay in the Pay Band of
Rs.37,400-67,000/-(PB-4) with Grade Pay of
Page 21 of 25
Rs.8,700/- shall be paid to the petitioner within a
period of three months from today. So far the question
of subscribing GPF is concerned, for the subsequent
appointment of the petitioner as the Registrar of
M.B.B. University w.e.f. 01.03.2017, there will be no
direction to grant the petitioner the benefit of GPF. Mr.
Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged
this Court [reflected in the written note] for directing
the respondents to release the petitioner’s
contribution to GPF with interest. The respondents are,
in the emerged circumstances, directed to refund the
petitioner’s contribution to GPF within a period of
three months from today with interest @ 7% as the
respondents were under obligation to refund the said
money when they had decided that the petitioner will
not get the benefit of GPF, though according to this
Court, the petitioner was entitled to.
48. The petitioner has raised a question on estoppel
based on promise. According to him, the respondents
ought not have resiled from their promise to the
serious jeopardy of the petitioner as the petitioner had
altered his position irreversibly as his lien was recalled
on his confirmation in the post of the Deputy Registrar
(Administration) in NIT Agartala. The petitoner was
extended the benefit of pension under CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 and GPF along with his confirmation. Till
then the lien was alive. On confirmation, when the
petitioner terminated the lien, those benefits were
suddenly recalled on the analogy as discussed
elaborately before. In this regard, this Court has
observed that there had been no change in law and
there had been no contravention of any law though the
veiled accusation made against the petitioner is that
the petitioner had manipulated the process. On a
serious scrutiny of the records, this Court did not find
even trace of manipulation by the petitioner nor the
materials were placed in the proceeding. Making wild
allegation without foundation is wholly unfair.
Fairness is an inseverable component of justice. The
State or its authority cannot embark on any action
based on hypothesis and on in-appropriate
consideration of law.
Having observed thus, the writ petition stands allowed
to the extent as indicated above. The respondents
shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation to
the petitioner. Such cost shall be paid within a period
of 3 (three) months from the date of judgment.
Records as produced by the respondents be returned
forthwith, under a sealed cover.”
On perusal of the aforesaid Judgment and Order, it
appears that Learned Single Judge has affirmed the
memorandums dated 04.12.2012 and 23.07.2013 [Annexures-1
and 2 respectively] by the said judgment.
16. However, being dissatisfied, the respondents-NITA
challenged the said Judgment and Order before the Division Bench
Page 22 of 25
of this High Court and by Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2023
in connection with W.A. No.200 of 2021, the Division Bench
dismissed the writ appeal affirming the Judgment and Order dated
31.05.2021 and order of correction dated 21.06.2021 in
connection with WP(C) No.1298 of 2017 passed by the Learned
Single Judge. In para Nos.10 and 11, the Division Bench of this
High Court made the following observation:
“10. Admittedly, memorandum No.NITA.2(335-
Estt)/2011/8516-19 dated 04.12.2012 and
memorandum No.F. NITA. 2(335-Estt) 2011/4204-05
rd
dated July, 23 2013 issued by the Director, NITA
clearly indicates that the past service of the
respondent was taken into consideration and benefits
were extended to the respondent herein basing on the
service record which would be made available.
rd
In the memorandum dated 23 July issued
by the Director(I/C) NITA it is mentioned that
“Sumanta Chakraborty, Deputy Registrar
(Administration) NIT Agartala was declared absorbed
and confirmed in past of Deputy Registrar (Admin) in
NIT Agartala from date of joining in NIT Agartala
w.e.f. 12.08.2011 protecting his pay and counting his
earlier service........". Further in the same
memorandum it is stated that “….. he is entitled to
have " the benefits counting his past services w.e.f.
16/03/1996 to 11/8/2011 for all purpose of leave and
pensionary benefits including gratuity etc....". So,
subsequent to his earlier appointment in 2011, he was
absorbed into NITA as Deputy Registrar
(Administration) and the benefits have been extended.
Accordingly to their own memorandum, the
respondent herein is entitled to pension under the Old
pension scheme to which he has already given his
option and he is entitled to the same.
11. Per contra the appellants submit before this Court
that since the petitioner has been appointed in NITA
on 12.08.2011, the new pension schemes need to be
made applicable. This Court is not inclined to
appreciate the same, since the said aforementioned
memorandums which are issued by the Director of
NITA himself needs to be taken into consideration. In
the event if the appellant-institution feels that the
Director has committed an error, it is for them to take
appropriate steps against the Director, if so desired,
for issuing such proceedings. But at this juncture, it is
not proper for this Court to decide the proceedings
issued by the said Director are on per with the Rules.”
17. After that, so many representations were submitted by
the petitioner for compliance of the Judgment and Order, but the
Page 23 of 25
same was not complied with. So, the petitioner was compelled to
file contempt petition before this Court, which was numbered as
Cont. Cas(C) 39 of 2024, and a coordinate bench of this High
Court disposed of the contempt petition by order dated
06.09.2024. The relevant portion runs as follows:
“To which, Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI
disputes and contends that the period during which
the petitioner has not served with the respondents and
where he was serving with the Pollution Control
Board, this respondent is not liable for making any
such payment. He has further placed on record
compliance order dated 04.09.2024, a statement of
proof of payment made to the petitioner and disputed
the contention made by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner.
This Court without entering into the disputed question
of facts, grants liberty to the petitioner to either issue
a notice or representation to the concerned
respondents by enclosing the statement of account i.e.
the balance amount to which he is entitled to in terms
of the order of the Court and on receipt of such notice
or representation from the petitioner, the respondents
shall decide the same in accordance with law within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of his
representation.
In view of above, C.C. stands closed.”
18. Even after filing of the contempt petition, the same was
not properly complied with, and in the meantime, the
respondents-NITA moved to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
which was numbered as SLP (Civil) Diary No.31104 of 2024. The
relevant portion of the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court of India:
“Delay condoned.
No case for interference is made out in exercise of our
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.”
From the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India,
it appears that Hon’ble the Supreme Court dismissed the plea
Page 24 of 25
taken by the respondents-NITA challenging the Judgment and
Order delivered by this High Court. So, it appears that the
Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2021 in WP(C) No.1298 of 2017
delivered by a coordinate bench of this High Court attained
finality.
19. Surprisingly, even after passing order by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court, the respondents-NITA did not comply with the
directions passed by this High Court. Although during contempt
proceeding they appeared before the Court with the plea that the
Judgment and Order delivered by the Learned Single Judge was
complied with, but factually NITA did not comply the judgment in
letter and spirit. Rather a portion of financial benefits was
extended to the present petitioner by NITA. At the time of hearing
Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Deb submitted that the Judgment
and Order delivered by the Learned Single Judge has been
complied with but in this regard in course of hearing nothing could
be placed by showing any documentary evidence on record to
substantiate the said submission.
20. Now, Learned Senior Counsel tried to draw the
attention of the Court that in pursuance of para No.38 of the
Judgment and Order delivered by Learned Single Judge, the
petitioner did not submit the authenticated statement of
capitalized value of pension and gratuity for the first service in
accordance with the instruction contained in the memo dated
29.08.1984 but according to my considered view, this submission
Page 25 of 25
was contrary to the memorandum dated 23.07.2013 issued by
NITA [Annexure-2] because there was no such scope for any
pension in the Tripura State Pollution Control Board.
21. So, after hearing both the sides and going through the
relevant records, it appears that the respondents-NITA before this
Court failed to satisfy the entitlement of the petitioner, as prayed
for, in the writ petition and as such, in the considered opinion of
this Court the petitioner is entitled to get relief in this writ
petition.
22. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the amount
as mentioned in para No.2 of the prayer portion of the writ
petition within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of
passing of this Judgment. However, if by this time, any payment
is made towards the aforesaid heads to the petitioner that would
be deducted from the amount to be paid by the NITA to the
petitioner.
23. With this observation, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
Pending applications(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Deepshikha
Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
Date: 2026.10.16
15:22:26 +05'30'
MOUMITA DATTA