The State Of Tripura And Others vs Sri Pradip Kumar Deb & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 335 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 3




                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA

                             W.A. No.22/2021
The State of Tripura and others
                                                            ----Appellant(s)
                                        Versus
Sri Pradip Kumar Deb & another
                                                          -----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. T.D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

Order

15/03/2021 (Akil Kureshi, C.J.)

This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge a

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.12.2019 in WP(C) No.1078

of 2018. The respondent No.1 herein Pradip Kumar Deb was the original

petitioner. He was appointed as a UDC. On 28.03.2013 his junior original

respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Accountant ignoring the

petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, had filed the said petition and prayed

that he may be granted promotion from the said date. During the pendency

of the petition, the petitioner retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2018,

still holding the post of UDC. The respondents appeared and cited the reason

of the petitioner not undertaking departmental training which was required

for promotion. This was on the ground that at the time when in 2012,

occasion arose for sending eligible candidates for training, the petitioner was

sent on election duties. His junior was sent for training which he completed

successfully. Shortly after the petitioner was not sent for training, he could

undertake the training for which the result was declared on 22.07.2012. The

DPC that met in the year 2015, also found the petitioner suitable for

promotion and recommended his promotion which was never granted. In

such background, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition holding that

not being sent for training initially was not on account of any fault of the

petitioner. While directing the respondents to grant retrospective promotion

to the petitioner, in view of the time gap in filing the petition, the learned

Single Judge did not grant benefit of the arrears.

2. We do not find any reason to interfere. If the petitioner was

eligible and senior, he ought to have been sent for training. If for some

administrative exigencies the department was unable to send the petitioner

for training, as in the present case he was on important election duties, the

petitioner cannot be made to suffer permanently due to some administrative

reasons. Strangely though by the time the petitioner's junior was promoted

as accountant, the petitioner had already undertaken the training, albeit later,

he was not considered for promotion. This only compounded the injustice

done to the petitioner.

3. We find no merits in the State appeal. The same is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

     (S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J                     (AKIL KURESHI), CJ




Pulak