Tripura High Court
Sri Sarajit Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 8 April, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.754/2018
Sri Sarajit Debbarma, S/O. Sri Kalicharan Debbarma, Resident of vill -
Dasherghat, PO - Baikunthapur, PS - Sidhai, Mohanpur, West Tripura , Pin -
799211.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, To be represented by the Principal Secretary,
Government of Tripura, RD (Panchayat Department), New Secretariat
Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010.
2. The Director, R.D. Department, Govt. of Tripura, Gorkhabasti, Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin-799006.
3. The BDO, Mohanpur R.D Block, Mohanpur, West Tripura.
4. The District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura District , Agartala,
Pin-799001.
5. Sri Sanjoy Debbarma, UDC, Office of the DM and Collector, Khowai.
6. Sri Tazim Chakma, UDC, office of the DM and Collector, Unokoti.
7. Sri Mithun Chakma, UDC, office of the DM and Collector, North Tripura.
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
Date of hearing and judgment : 8th April, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Petitioner's grievance is that he is denied promotion to the post
of UDC while his colleagues and juniors were considered and promoted.
2. Brief facts are as under:
The petitioner joined the post of LDC on regular basis in the
Government department on 16.06.2009. Respondents No.5 to 7 were also
selectees of the same batch. They joined the post of LDC on 17.06.2009,
20.06.2009 and 29.06.2009 respectively. Though the petitioner has
contended that the said respondents No.5 to 7 having joined the post later
than him were junior to him in the cadre of LDC, the same cannot be
accepted without further examination since the appointees of the same batch
would carry their seniority on the basis of rank in the select list and not the
date of joining. However, this aspect is not any longer important since what
has happened is that in the year 2016. Respondents No.5 to 7 were promoted
to the post of UDC and they continue to occupy such promotional posts. The
petitioner was not considered and promoted. He has filed this petition in
which the respondents have appeared and filed reply. In the affidavit strange
stand taken is that when the respondents No.5 to 7 were considered for
promotion, the name of the petitioner did not appear in the final seniority list
of LDC and, therefore, his case was not considered. The official respondents
do not offer any explanation for non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner
in the seniority list of LDC. They also do not give satisfactory explanation
for not correcting this error on their own. All they say is after the DPC
which met on 18.09.2014 (when the petitioner was not considered since his
name did not figure in the seniority list) there has not been any DPC for
considering promotions.
3. The situation created by the department is quite unsatisfactory.
There is absolutely no reason, none cited how the name of a regular
Government servant who was holding the post since several years, did not
figure in the seniority list. On account of this though he was due for
consideration for promotion, such consideration was not granted.
Subsequently, as per the account of the authorities his name was included in
the seniority list. Again how the reappearance of the name after earlier
mysterious disappearance is also not explained. In any case, as noted above,
subsequently the respondents should have joined a review DPC and
considered the case of the petitioner as on the date when his juniors were
considered and if found fit, granted promotion to the post of UDC with
retrospective effect.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Mangal
Debbarma submitted that possibly because of the interim order passed by the
Supreme Court in dispute regarding reservation in promotion the
Government was unable to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion.
When the right of the petitioner for being considered for promotion had
arisen long before any such dispute reached the Supreme Court or any order
was passed by the Supreme Court this cannot be the reason for non-
consideration of the case of the petitioner.
5. In the result, petition is disposed of with following directions:
The official respondents shall draw a review DPC to consider
the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of UDC as on the date
when his colleagues/juniors respondents No.5 to 7 were considered. If the
petitioner is found fit for promotion, such promotion shall be granted with
retrospective effect from the date on which the said respondents were
promoted for all purposes except for payment of actual pay and allowances.
Entire exercise shall be completed within three months from
today.
6. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Pulak
