Tripura High Court
Majahar Ali vs The State Of Tripura on 5 March, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.230 of 2022
Majahar Ali,
Son of late Wahid Ali,
Resident of village-Fulbarikandi,
P.O. & P.S. Kailashahar,
District: Unakoti, Tripura, PIN:799 277
Age: 54 years
---- Appellant(s)
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Tripura,
To be represented by the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex,
New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN: 799 010
2. The District Magistrate & Collector,
West Tripura District,
Government of Tripura,
Office of the DM & Collector, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN: 799 001
---- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K. Nath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Kohinoor N Bhattacharya, G.A.
Date of hearing and delivery of
judgment and order : 05.03.2024
Judgment & order
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order (Oral)
The present writ appeal is filed seeking for the following
reliefs:
A. Admit the Appeal;
B. Call for the records
C. After hearing both the parties, modify the impugned Order, dated
05.12.2022, passed by L'd Single Judge, in WP(C) No.681/2021, to
the effect, that the Appellant shall be entitled to all consequential
and ancillary financial benefits including pay and salary with effect
from the date which is anterior to the date on which his juniors
superseded the Appellant in the matter of promotion to the post of
UDC in the year 2012;
D. Pass any other order/orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit
and proper
02. The case of the petitioner is that due to pendency of a
disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, his promotion to the
post of UDC was kept in abeyance and the decision was pending
under a sealed cover. Thereafter, by virtue of an order dated
06.09.2021 the respondents have communicated their decision
about the promotion of the petitioner from LDC to UDC.
03. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has submitted
before this Court that he is entitled for seniority and other benefits.
Since, his case is squarely covered by a decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Union of India and Others vs. K.V.
Jankiraman and Others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109. In para-
8 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as
under:
"8. The common questions involved in all these matters relate
to what in service jurisprudence has come to be known as
"sealed cover procedure". Concisely stated, the questions are:--
(1) what is the date from which it can be said that
disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against an
employee? (2) What is the course to be, adopted when the
employee is held guilty in such proceedings if the guilt merits
punishment other than that of dismissal? (3) To what benefits
an employee who is completely or par- tially exonerated is
entitled to and from which date?' The ,'sealed cover procedure"
is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment
etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against
him at the relevant time and hence, the findings of his
entitlement to the benefit are kept in a sealed cover to be
opened after the proceedings in question are over'. Hence. the
relevance and importance of the questions."
04. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing an
appeal under Section 226 of the Constitution of India read with
Chapter V A Rule 2(2) of the Gauhati High Court Rules, as
applicable against the Order dated 05.12.2022 passed by Learned
Single Judge in WP(C)No.681 of 2021.
05. The present appeal is filed before this Court and the
order passed by the Learned Single Judge on 05.12.2022 are only a
piecemeal to the relief granted and the petitioner prayed for further
reliefs and prayed to allow the writ appeal.
06. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, Learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. K. Nath, Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and also heard Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharya, Learned
G.A. appearing for the respondents.
07. It is seen from the record from the record that the
petitioner on 12.01.2021 referred before the matter before the
respondents seeking to grant the relief in terms of his disciplinary
enquiry and also the promotions thereof and in pursuance thereof
in 06.09.2021 the respondents considered the case of the
petitioner has awarded promotion from LDC to UDC.
08. Now, coming to the issue of benefits as raised by the
petitioner before this Court is concerned, it is seen from the record
that the petitioner has approached the respondents seeking relief/s
in terms of his promotion and former seniority and other benefits
along with financial benefits and any other benefits whichever is
entitled.
09. The impugned proceeding or action whichever is under
challenge the writ petition is not maintainable has been taken on
record and the Learned Single Judge has decided the matter on
merits.
10. This Court itself considers that the writ appeal is not
maintainable under Section 226 of the Constitution of India nor any
impugned action of the respondents when the matter came to be
issued in the absence of which this Court considers case of the
petitioner and grants relief to the petitioner to the extent that the
petitioner is at liberty to file the representation before the
respondents and placed all the materials in support of his claim and
on receipt of such representation, the respondents shall consider
the same in accordance with law within a period of 3(three) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
This order is passed without expressing any opinion on
merits.
In terms of the above, the present writ appeal is
disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
SABYASACHI SABYASACHI BHATTACHARJEE
BHATTACHARJEE Date: 2024.03.06 03:43:11
-08'00'
Moumita
