The State Of Tripura & 2 Ors vs Smt. Anima Das
2022 Latest Caselaw 1010 Tri

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA

                           WA 21 of 2021

The State of Tripura & 2 Ors.
                                                           ---Appellants
                                Versus
Smt. Anima Das
                                                             ---Respondent

For Appellant(s)                  :      Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A
For respondent(s)                 :      Mr. T. D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                                      Order
05/12/2022

Heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the appellants- State. Also heard Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, the original writ petitioner.

The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 23.06.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 1026 of 2018 titled as Smt. Anima Das Vs. The State of Tripura and 2 others.

By way of filing the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the promotion of her junior alleging that she was illegally denied promotion. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the said writ petition had observed thus:-

"11. The contention that the petitioner had made such a prayer in the previous petition which was not granted and that therefore, the same cannot be considered in the present petition, cannot be accepted. In the previous petition, the High Court accepting the stand of the department that a DPC would be drawn for the purpose of considering the petition, had given suitable directions to complete such process within three months. At that stage, the Court had not entered into the question whether the petitioner would be found fit for promotion or not and if found fit for promotion, what should be the consequential relief that the petitioner should get. The present issue which the petitioner is raising is a fall out of the developments subsequent to passing of the judgment by the High Court.

12. Having said that, the petitioner also cannot hope to receive full pay and allowances for the entire period. Firstly, the petitioner has not discharged duties on the post. More importantly, the petition was moved previously in the year 2013 though the grievance of the petitioner arose on 05.10.2010 when her junior was promoted. Considering such facts and circumstances, it is directed that the respondents shall pay 25% of the pay and allowances for the post of Supervisor (ICDS) for the intervening period of 05.10.2010 to 14.11.2016. This shall be done within a period of 3 (three) months from today."

Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A challenging the aforesaid directions quoted here-in-above, submits that the salary of the petitioner was notionally fixed, and in such a case, the direction of the learned Single Judge allowing her 25% of the pay and allowances for the post of Supervisor, ICDS for the intervening period of 05.10.2010 to 14.11.2016 does not sound good.

We are unable to agree with the said submissions of learned Addl. G.A. We find no error in the findings of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the instant writ appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.

                  JUDGE                                             JUDGE


Rohit