Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura Represented ... vs Shri Janardhan Debnath on 8 November, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.215 of 2021
IA 01 of 2021
1.The State of Tripura represented by the Secretary to the Government of
Tripura, Forest Department, New Secretariat, Capital Complex, PO and PS
NCC, District West Tripura PIN- 799010
2.The Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Finance Department, New
Secretariat, Capital Complex, PO and PS- NCC District- West Tripura, PIN-
799010
3.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Government of Tripura,
Aranya Bavan, Pt. Nehru Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, PS-NCC District-
West Tripura, 799010
4.The Executive Director Tripura Forest Development and Plantation
Corporation Ltd. Abhoynagar, PO- Agartala, PS- West Agartala, District-
West Tripura
5.The Managing Director Tripura Forest Development and Plantation
Corporation Ltd. Abhoynagar, Agartala, PO- Agartala, PS- West Agartala,
District- West Tripura, 799005
6.The Divisional Manager TFDPC, South I, Division, Tamacarra, South
Tripura, District
-----Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shri Janardhan Debnath S/O Late Birendra Debnath, Resident of village and
PO- South Tamachara, PS Santir Bazar, District- South Tripura PIN- 799125
-----Respondent(s)
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.Sarkar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.Bannerjee, Adv.
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Date: 08.11.2021
[1] This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
16.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.52 of 2021.
[2] Factual background of the case is as under:
Janardhan Debnath, the original petitioner [respondent herein]
was selected for the post of Project Guard in Tripura Forest Development and
Plantation Corporation Ltd.[ a Government of Tripura undertaking] along with
other candidates. Following his selection, an offer of appointment vide
No.F.2-120/PG/Estt/TFDPC-07/6210-16 dated 29.09.2010 on fixed pay basis
@ Rs.5,452/- per month in the pay scale of Rs.5310-24,000/- of PB-2 and
Grade Pay of Rs.1,700/- plus admissible allowances was issued to him. The
petitioner submitted his acceptance of the offer of appointment to the
department on 04.10.2010 along with the required documents. Thereafter, all
other candidates who were selected together with the petitioner were given
appointment except the petitioner. He submitted several representations to the
department seeking his appointment in the post for which he was selected.
Subsequently, vide Memo No.F.2-120/PG/Estt/TFDPC-15/7465-72 dated
09.11.2015, petitioner was appointed as Project Guard on fixed pay basis @
Rs.6,050/- per month in the pay scale of Rs.5,700-24000/- of PB-2 and Grade
Pay of Rs.2,100/- plus allowances as admissible in the Corporation and he was
asked to report for duty to the Officer-in-Charge, Saidarpar, RPC in North
Tripura within 20.11.2015. Pursuant to the said appointment letter, petitioner
WA215 of 2021
joined in service and his joining was accepted w.e.f. 11.11.2015 vide Memo
No.F.2-5(430)/Estt/TFDPC-2011/8711-16 dated 15.12.2015. After joining in
service, petitioner submitted several representations to the department
claiming seniority in terms of merit w.e.f. the date on which the other
candidates were appointed who were selected for the same post under the
same selection process. The department did not consider his representation.
[3] In this backdrop of circumstances, petitioner filed WP(C) No.52
of 2021claiming the following reliefs:
"(i) Admit the petition of the petitioner
(ii) Call for records from the custody of the Respondents.
(iii) Issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the
Respondents and each of them to set aside, quash and / or cancel
the provisional Seniority List of Project Guards of TFDPC Ltd
as on 01.02.2017 vide No. F.2-87/Estt/TFDPC-17/11225-29
dated 16.02.2017 fortwith and in no time
(iv) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
Respondents to provide all service benefits as 'Project Guard' in
the pay scale of Rs.5310-24000/- including all the allowances
and seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. date of his initial date of
joining i.e. 04.01.2011.
(v) Pass such further order or orders, directing or directions as
the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper having regards to
the circumstances of the case."
[4] In the course of hearing of the said writ petition before the
learned Single Judge, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that since
the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges brought against him,
WA215 of 2021
he was entitled to be appointed from the same day on which the other
candidates who were selected together were appointed and he was also
entitled to all other benefits including seniority and back wages with
retrospective effect.
[5] On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the State
respondents [appellants herein] that no order of appointment was issued
in favour of the petitioner till 09.11.2015 since a criminal case was
pending against him. Counsel contended that petitioner who was
convicted by the trial court for offence punishable under Section 304B
IPC, challenged his conviction and sentence in appeal in the High Court
in Crl. Appeal (J) No.20 of 2012 in which judgment was delivered on
30.07.2015 acquitting the petitioner from the said charge and pursuant to
his acquittal, the order of appointment was issued on 09.11.2015.
[6] Counsel representing the State respondents in the Writ
Petition further contended before the learned Single Judge that there was
no malafide, bias or discrimination against the petitioner. Rather, his
appointment was delayed due to a justifiable ground.
[7] Having appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions made at the bar, the learned Single Judge allowed
the Writ Petition viewing as under:
WA215 of 2021
"8. In view of the above perspective fact, in the considered
opinion of this court, the petitioner shall be appointed from
the date when the other selectees were appointed as from
the provisional seniority list it surfaced that Sri Prabhat
Debnath, Sri Ajit Tripura, Sri Pintu Shil, Sri Sanjit
Debbarma and Sri Pradip Barman were appointed within
05.01.2011 to 10.01.2011. The petitioner therefore be
appointed during that period and his seniority shall be
determined in order of merit that he had achieved in the
selection process. It is noted that no separate proceeding
had been drawn against the petitioner for obvious reason, as
the petitioner was not appointed in view of pendency of the
said criminal prosecution. It is made absolutely clear that
from the deemed date of appointment till the actual date of
appointment i.e. 11.11.2015, the pay of the petitioner shall
be fixed notionally, meaning that the petitioner shall not get
any financial benefit during that period. But his
entitlements will be carried forward after adding the yearly
increment and all other benefits including the benefit of
revision, if is applicable during that period. The petitioner's
pay thus shall be re-fixed from 11.11.2015. The petitioner
will be entitled to get the financial benefit since 11.11.2015
till date. The arrears that would accrue be paid to the
petitioner within a period of four months from the date
when the respondents will set a copy of this order from the
petitioner.
As already noted, the seniority of the petitioner will
be determined on the basis of the position in the merit panel
vis-a-vis the others incumbents. It is to be further noted that
the other incumbents who were recruited out of the same
selection process have not been made party in this
proceeding. But since the final seniority list has not been
published as yet, this court did not find any difficulty in
passing this order.
The respondents before publishing the final
seniority list shall issue a fresh provisional seniority list
inviting objection from all the incumbents.
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands
allowed."
[8] Aggrieved with the decision of the learned Single Judge, the
State Respondents being Appellants have challenged the said judgment
WA215 of 2021
and order of the learned Single Judge by means of filing this Writ
Appeal.
[9] Heard Mr.H.Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellants. Also heard Mr.B.Bannerjee, learned advocate appearing for
the Respondent on advance notice.
[10] Mr.Sarkar, counsel appearing for the appellants contends
that the action of the appellants in delaying the appointment of the
petitioner (respondent herein) was justified because after he was
selected, it was discovered that a criminal case was pending against him.
Therefore, the other candidates selected with him were segregated and
given appointment and appointment of the petitioner was kept pending.
Counsel submits that immediately after he was acquitted of the charges
in an appeal preferred by him, his appointment was issued. Since there
was no malafide or bias on the part of the appellants, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set
aside.
[11] Counsel appearing for the original petitioner [respondent
herein] on the other hand submits that at the time of submitting his
acceptance of the offer of appointment he did not suppress the fact about
the pendency of the criminal case against him. He submitted all
particulars of the case along with other required documents. Counsel
WA215 of 2021
contends that he was proved not guilty in appeal before this high court
and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly directed the appellants to
appoint him and restore his seniority in terms of merit from the date on
which the other candidates selected with him were given appointment.
Counsel contends that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
[12] It would appear from the impugned judgment of the learned
Single Judge that in view of his acquittal from the criminal case, learned
Single Judge directed the appellants to appoint and restore the seniority
of the petitioner[respondent herein] retrospectively. No back wage has
been allowed to him. Therefore, there will be no burden on the State
Exchequer in carrying out the order of the learned Single Judge. It is
clearly stipulated in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that he will
get the financial benefit since 11.11.2015 i.e. the date of his actual
appointment.
[13] For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the
judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference
in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed and disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Saikat Sarma
WA215 of 2021
