Tripura High Court
Sri Dipankar Majumder vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 11 January, 2021
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.29/2020
Sri Dipankar Majumder, son of Bhabotosh Majumder, resident of village &
PO-Jualikhamar, Udaipur, District-South Tripura.
----Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and others
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Date of hearing and judgment : 11th January, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Akil Kureshi, C.J.)
Appellant, the original petitioner, is aggrieved to a limited
extent by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.05.2019 in WP(C)
No.674 of 2019 which he had filed for his retrospective promotion with all
consequential benefits from the post of LDC to UDC. Petitioner claims such
promotion on reserved vacancy for Scheduled Caste to which he belongs.
Previously he had filed WP(C) No.713 of 2018 which was disposed of
requesting the administration to consider the representation of the petitioner.
Thereupon the General Administration Department while disposing of the
representation observed that the High Court had only directed to consider
the petition and decide by a speaking order. It cannot be presumed that
promotion is to be granted. Thus when the petitioner's grievances were not
resolved by the administration, he filed fresh petition. This petition came to
be disposed of by impugned judgment dated 31.05.2019. The learned Single
Judge noted that the DPC had also recommended retrospective promotion of
the petitioner-appellant in view of the fact that his juniors were promoted
and a vacancy for SC category candidate was available. The learned Single
Judge made some observations about this retrospective promotion,
nevertheless provided that the petitioner would get promotion from the date
when his juniors were appointed but the financial benefits would be released
only from 27.05.2019, i.e. the date of filing of the petition.
2. The grievance of the appellant voiced through his advocate Mr.
Somik Deb is twofold. Firstly, counsel contended that the DPC had while
disposing of the petitioner's representation pursuant to the previous order of
the High Court clearly recorded that in the DPC which was conducted in the
year 2014, there was a vacancy for SC category candidate and it was an
oversight not to consider the petitioner for promotion to such vacancy. The
DPC, therefore, recommended retrospective promotion of the petitioner. The
observation of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment may
amount to limiting the retrospective effect of the promotion. The second
limb of the petitioner's grievance is the limited financial benefits granted
pursuant to the promotion that may be allowed to the petitioner. Learned
counsel submitted that even the benefit of the judgment of the learned Single
Judge has not been granted to the petitioner though the Government has not
challenged the judgment of the Single Judge.
3. We propose to put an end to this litigation, firstly by clarifying
the implication of the order of the learned Single Judge with respect to
petitioner's retrospective promotion and thereafter dealing with his
expectation of arrears of salary.
4. The DPC which met after the High Court disposed of the earlier
petition of the petitioner on 23.07.2018 in its report has recorded that the
case of the petitioner was not considered in the last DPC conducted on
18.09.2014 due to oversight and, therefore, no recommendation for his
promotion was made to the Government. The DPC also noted that one
vacancy of SC category and promotional post was available at that time. The
DPC, therefore, recommended that the petitioner be granted promotion with
retrospective effect.
5. Though the Government did not act on such recommendations
of the DPC, the learned Single Judge found that the petitioner had made out
a case for retrospective promotion. The observations made by the learned
Single Judge, therefore, must be reconciled and be understood as requiring
the department to promote the petitioner to the post of UDC from due date
when his juniors were promoted pursuant to the previous recommendations
of the DPC dated 18.09.2014. This would be with consequential effect on
his seniority. He would accordingly be placed at an appropriate seniority
position in the cadre of UDC.
6. We do not propose any modification and direction for payment
of arrears of salary. Firstly, the learned Single Judge has provided such
benefit from the date of filing of the petition. Secondly, the petitioner had
not discharged duty in the promotional post and lastly, though his juniors
were promoted sometime in March, 2015 his first petition before the High
Court was filed in the year 2018. The petitioner himself has thus taken
sufficiently long time to agitate his grievances.
7. Before closing we may observe that the DPC has referred to the
pending litigation before the Supreme Court in which the order of status quo
has been granted. Firstly, it would prima facie appear that the juniors of the
petitioner were promoted before the order of status quo was passed by the
Supreme Court. Secondly, in any case the Government has not filed any
appeal against the direction of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, we
need not say anything further in this respect.
8. Now that this appeal is also disposed of, it is expected that the
administration shall carry out the directions contained in the judgment of the
learned Single Judge as explained in this order expeditiously and preferably
within three months from today.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Pulak
