For vs For
2022 Latest Caselaw 726 Tri

                                  Page - 1 of 3



                           HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA
                                W.A. No. 74/2022

For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. N. Majumdar, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)           :     None.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY Order 02.08.2022 (Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)

Heard Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the State.

Challenge in the present writ appeal has been made to the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court of Tripura allowing

WP(C) No. 550/2019 and disposing of the said writ petition with the

following directions:

"19. The writ petition, is accordingly allowed directing the State- respondents to provide the benefit of ACP-1 to the petitioners, if the petitioners had not been promoted within ten years from the date of their first entry into service. Simultaneously, the order dated 29.11.2017 under reference No.F.2(312)-FISH(ESTT)/2010-2011, shall stand quashed and set aside.

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

When this matter was listed for admission, this Court by order dated

25.05.2022 directed the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to satisfy

the court as to whether the respondents had ever been given promotion in

course of their service and if so, to produce those documents to establish

the said fact.

Page - 2 of 3

In response to the direction, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing

for the State brought to our notice to the fact that by notification dated 5th

August, 2021 pay of the respondents has been revised on account of their ad-

hoc promotion which in clause no. 4.(iii) noted as follows : "This ad-hoc

appointment on promotion shall not be treated as regular appointment

on promotion". We are clearly of the view that such ad-hoc promotion is

not a regular promotion and therefore the pay revision indicated in the said

notification dated 5th August,2021 does not tantamount to comply with the

direction of this Court's judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Single

Judge.

Mr. Majumder, further drew our attention to a note dated 22.11.2017

which read as follows: "It is informed that the incumbents have already

availed one ACP during their scale up-gradation due to absorption

under Tripura Fisheries Service Rules,2012." We are afraid that this

understanding on the part of the State Authority is wholly inaccurate. When

the respondents were absorbed under the Tripura Fisheries Service Rules,

2012, those fitted into appropriate position to which they were entitled which

also included a financial revision. This revision affected at the time of

absorption into the Tripura Fisheries Service cannot substitute the right of an

employee for whom ACP i.e. assured carrier progression is granted in terms

of the said rule. One cannot be a substitute for the other.

Page - 3 of 3

Admittedly, though the petitioner has been promoted on ad-hoc basis

without any right to regular posting such ad-hoc appointment also cannot be

treated as promotion for the purpose of denying the respondents the right of

ACP as directed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. We, therefore, have no

hesitation dismissing the present appeal and direct the State to comply with

the direction issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge within a period of 03(three)

months from today.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed and the matter is disposed

of.

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

(S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ

Paritosh