Tripura High Court
Sri Sushil Debbarma And 3 Others vs The State Of Tripura And 4 Others on 30 August, 2023
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WA. No.214 of 2021
Sri Sushil Debbarma and 3 Others
.....Appellants
_V_E_R_S_U_S_
The State of Tripura and 4 Others
.....Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Abir Baran, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Ms. S. Saha, Advocate.
Whether fit for reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
_F_I_N_A_L_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
30.08.2023
Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abir
Baran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants also heard Mr. D.
Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents.
[2] The present appeal has been filed under Rule-2 of Chapter-V-A of the
Gauhati High Court Rules, read with Article-226 of the Constitution of India
against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in WP(C)
No.810 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, this Court has dismissed the writ
petition, thereby committing manifest error of facts and law in determining the
legal issues raised by the petitioner-appellants.
[3] The facts in brief are that, the appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 had joined the
Forest Department, Government of Tripura in 1992, and the appellant No.4 had
joined in the year 1985 as TFS Grade II. In the WP, the appellants contended that
the appellant Nos.1, 2 & 3 completed ten years of service in 2002, and the appellant
No.4 completed ten years of service in the year 1995, and became eligible for
appointment to TFS Grade 1. By the Order dated 05.11.2015, Foresters were
promoted to the post of Forest Rangers, with retrospective effect from 20.11.2003,
being the date of their acquiring eligibility of promotion.
[4] By a Letter dated 26.02.2019, the Representation of the appellants
was rejected, by a non-speaking Order, and thus, the grievance as well as legitimate
claim of the appellants, for appointment to the post of TFS Grade-1, from the
respective dates of acquiring eligibility remained unaddressed, and therefore, on
24.08.2018, they had served a Demand Notice upon the respondents, stating in
details, and requested for their appointment to TFS Grade-1, with effect from their
respective dates of acquiring eligibility. In the WP, the appellants contended that by
a letter dated 07.10.2020, the GA(P&T) Department, Government of Tripura gave
a reply to the Demand Notice dated 24.08.2020.
[5] Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abir Baran,
learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the Hon'ble Single
Judge has failed to appreciate the mandate, contained in Rule-31 of the Tripura
Forest Service Rules, 1988, which inter alia mandates that appointments of the
members of the service to the selection Grade, shall be made, in consultation with
the Tripura Public Service Commission, on the basis of merit, with due regard to
seniority, and Rule 31(2) of the said Rules prescribes the minimum eligibility of ten
years of service, in the feeder grade of Tripura Forest Service Grade-II, for being
considered for appointment to the Selection Grade.
[6] The Hon'ble Single Judge has failed to appreciate that by the Order
dated 03.11.2015 (Annexure-4 to the WP), five officers were appointed as Forest
Rangers, with retrospective effect from 20.12.2003 against the supernumerary post
of Forest Ranger, Forest Department, Government of Tripura, by the Memorandum
dated 05.11.2015, with the prior concurrence of the Finance Department,
Government of Tripura, which by itself, manifested the hostility and
discrimination, meted out to the appellants.
[7] The Hon'ble Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the claims of
the appellants cannot be termed as belated inasmuch as the appellants were
informed about the rejection of their Demand Notice by the Communication dated
07.10.2020, and therefore, such claims of the appellants cannot be treated as highly
belated so as to merit dismissal. That apart, the appellants having proceeded on
retirement, in the event, such retrospective promotion is granted, the same would
only have the effect of advancement of pay and allowances, by retrospective
fixation thereof and consequently, the same would result in fixation of higher
pension. In such view of the matter, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted
that the Hon'ble Single Judge was wholly in error, in dismissing the WP, presented
by the appellants.
[8] The Hon'ble Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the prayers of
the appellants to the extent of grant of financial benefits could not have been
rejected, on the ground of delay and laches inasmuch as it is a settled legal
principle that where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or any
allowance, such challenge cannot be held to be barred by limitation on the doctrine
of laches as the denial of benefit occurs every month, when the salary is paid,
thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on the principle of 'continuing
wrong'.
[9] After overall discussions, if we go by the appellants own dates and
events, they want retrospective benefits whereas; they are late by decades in
approaching the Court. Even If we consider the appellants scale down expectations
of grant of due date of promotion from the date where the vacancies arose, by their
own account such event took place in the year 2004. This promotional order made
it clear that the effect of promotion is prospective. Limitation Act may not be
applicable to the writ petition, which was due for his protection way-back in 1995
but to get over the action of laches which was not explained, they only made
representation for the purpose of creating litigation in the year 2018 and the same
stands rejected and thereafter, filed writ petition. Mere filing of representation
before the concerned authority after elapse of 16-17 years, itself draws adverse
inference against the conduct of the appellants which amounts to laches.
Accordingly, we find no infirmities in the finding of the Hon'ble Single Judge.
[10] In this count, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Union of India
and Others v. Chaman Rana, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 798, held that "In the facts
and circumstances of the present case, any direction to consider retrospective
promotion of the respondents at such a belated passage of time of over 17 to 20
years, would virtually bring a tsunami in the service resulting in administrative
chaos quite apart from the financial implications for the government. The order of
the High Court is therefore held to be unsustainable and is set aside."
[11] The appellants are not either contingency paid staff who would be on
tenterhooks and therefore, always slow in taking on the administration in a neither
Court of law, nor are low paid servants. They are Grade-I officers who had
sufficient means and wherewithal to ventilate their grievance timely but, that has
not been done by the appellants. According to the Apex Court it has been
categorically indicated that after travelling for so many years if the promotion is
now decided, that would create chaos would amount to creating tsunami.
[12] In view of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation to the
hold that they only made representation for the purpose of creating litigation in the
year 2018 and the same stands rejected thereafter, filed writ petition and the
rejection order is challenged in the writ petition. So, the action of the petitioners
sleeping over the matter for long time till the date of filing representation, amounts
to laches and this Court draws an inference that only to bring this litigation under
the purview of the writ jurisdiction, they have filed the same and thereafter, the writ
appeal has been filed. This action of the petitioners cannot be appreciated when the
petitioners are not serious enough about their rights, this Court cannot appreciate
the said action. On the ground of laches, this Court draws an adverse inference
against the petitioners and declines to interfere with the order passed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge on 08.01.2021.
[13] In that view of the matter, the present appeal stands dismissed.
Consequently, the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Judge stands affirmed.
JUDGE JUDGE
A. Ghosh
ANJAN Digitally signed
by ANJAN GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2023.09.08
12:55:54 +05'30'
