S. Talapatra, j. - (1.)Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.
(2.)There is no dispute that the petitioners were appointed as the Graduate Teachers under the Directorate of School Education and after completion of 5[five] years of continuous service on fixed monthly pay, their regular pay scale for the substantive post was released. Those appointments admittedly were questioned in a proceeding before this court. By the judgment and order dtd. 7/5/2014 delivered in Tanmoy Nath and others v. State of Tripura and others, reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731 the their appointments were struck down and as consequence thereof, the petitioners were terminated. The petitioners, for purpose of getting the benefit of their past service, have referred Para-125 in the judgment in Tanmoy Nath (supra) which reads as under:
"125. We would also like to make it clear that other than the benefits indicated by us above there can be no reservation/preference on the basis of age. There shall be no preference to dependent government servants or retired government employee or retrenched employees etc. There can be no reservation for linguistic or religious minorities or on area wise basis. It is further made clear that if the persons who are selected in the previous selection are again selected then the service rendered by them earlier shall be counted for the purpose of seniority, pension and all other purposes." [Emphasis added]

(3.)Both the counsel appearing for the parties have submitted that the petitioners' case is well covered by the decision of this court rendered in Babul Debnath and Ors. v. State of Tripura and Ors. [the judgment and order dtd. 21/1/2019 delivered in W.P.(C) No.435 of 2018, Annexure-6 to the writ petition] where this court has observed inter alia as under:
"4. The State preferred an appeal [Spl. Leave Appeal No.18993-19049/2014 titled as State of Tripura and Ors. and Etc. v. Tanmoy Nath and Ors. and Etc.] before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India which eventually was dismissed vide order dtd. 29/3/2017 and the impugned judgment and order dtd. 7/5/2014 passed by this Court, slightly modified to the following extent:

"Since we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, the directions in para 123 now required to be suitably modified. We, therefore, direct :

(a) New Employment Policy should be framed by the State by 30/4/2017 if not already framed and advertisements for filling up the vacancies may be issued latest by 31/5/2017. Page 12 of 14.

(b) The fresh selection process be completed on or before 31/12/2017 and till the fresh process is completed, the teachers already appointed shall continue.

(c) The candidates who participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisements in question whether selected or not, will be allowed to participate in the fresh selection process by relaxing their age but subject to their having necessary qualifications.

(d) The qualifications in the case of teachers governed by the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 shall be in conformity with the relevant statutory provisions of the said Act.

(e) The qualifications of teachers employed for Classes IX and above shall be strictly in compliance with the relevant provisions concerning such appointments. Subject to the aforesaid modifications, the view taken by the High Court in the impugned order is affirmed and the special leave petitions are dismissed." ............ (Emphasis supplied).

5. It is not in dispute that insofar as para 125 reproduced (supra), with emphasis is concerned, has attained finality.

The State is bound to comply with the same.

To our reading, if any one of the already selected candidates are again selected in terms of the fresh selection process, then their earlier services so rendered by them has to be counted for the benefit of seniority, pension and all other purposes.

6. Before us, it is not in dispute that the present writ petitioners, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court reproduced (supra) had participated in the fresh selection process so undertaken by the Government. It is also not in dispute that they stand selected, in accordance with law. Also letters of appointment stand issued, which they accepted and the petitioners posted with their joining at the appropriate places of posting. Their selection and appointment is to the very same post to which they earlier stood selected and appointed.

7. It is the petitioners' grievance that notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court, unambiguous in nature, the State Government, in utter disregard, rather in contempt, have issued fresh letters of appointment, completely ignoring the past services so rendered by them and treating their service as a fresh from the date of their selection so undertaken pursuant to and in terms of fresh selection process.

8. Well, to our mind, this exercise undertaken by the Government is not in the spirit, rather in utter disregard of the directions issued by this Court. The directions as we have already expressed are unambiguously clear. Past service rendered by a candidate, who was selected and had discharged his/her duties had to be counted for the purposes of seniority, pension and all other benefits. Candidates stood selected to the very same post.

9. As such, in our considered view, the writ petition needs to be allowed with a direction to the State to treat the past service of each one of the petitioner(s), so rendered in relation to the earlier selection process, for the purposes of seniority, pension and all other benefits. All consequential action shall positively be undertaken by the State within a period of 3(three) months. Equally, monetary benefits, if any, shall be disbursed within the aforesaid period."

;