Tripura High Court
Sri Dilip Kumar Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 12 March, 2024
Page 1 of 12
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.50 of 2023
Sri Dilip Kumar Debbarma,
Son of Lt. Chandrabadan Debbarma, resident of Nandan Nagar, Near Auxiliam
Girls School, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District West Tripura,
Pin 799006, Age 52 years
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Govt. of
Tripura, New Capital Complex, P.O. Secretariat, P.S. New Capital Complex,
District West Tripura, Pin 799010
2. The Principal Secretary,
Department of Finance, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, Government of
Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, P.S. New Capital Complex, Dist West Tripura, Pin
799010
3. The Director of Secondary Education,
Directorate of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura, Siksha Bhavan,
Office Lane, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura, Pin
799001
4. Sri Phiranjan Tripura,
Son of Lt. Shyampadma Tripura, resident of Sukanta Palli, Ujan Abhoynagar,
P.O. Abhoynagar, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, District West Tripura,
Pin 799005, Age 55 years
5. Mrs. Kalpana Debbarma,
Wife of Chiroin Reang, resident of Madhya Banamalipur, North West Corner of
Central Jail (Old), Near Volcan Club, Agartala, West Tripura, Age 56 years
6. Sri Madhusudhan Debbarma,
Son of Lt. Ram Chandra Debbarma, resident of North Banamalipur, Khaswrang
Kami, Opp. side of Young Corner Club, Agartala, West Tripura, Age 53 years
7. Sri Shukurai Debbarma
Son of Lt. Baishakh Chandra Debbarma, resident of Vill Bania Bari, P.O.
Madhuchowdhury Para, P.S. Lefunga, Mohanpur, West Tripura, Pin 799211, Age
57 years
8. Sri Rabindra Debbarma,
Son of Lt. Kartik Chandra Debbarma, resident of Vill + P.O. Barkathal, Sub-
Division Mohanpur, District West Tripura, Pin 799211, Age 54 years.
9. Sri Rajesh Debbarma,
Son of Lt. Ram Chandra Debbarma, resident of Pratap Roy Road, Krishnanagar,
Near Judge Quarter, Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura, Pin
799001, Age 52 years
...... Respondent(s)
Page 2 of 12
For Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Senior Advocate.
Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
Date of hearing &
delivery of Judgment : 12th March, 2024.
Whether fit for reporting : YES
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel for the appellant as well
as Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. for the State respondents and Mr. P. Roy
Barman, learned senior counsel for the private respondents.
[2] Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated
28.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.400 of 2021
whereby learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the private
respondents granting the followings reliefs:
"Without entering into the controversy further and taking
into consideration of the submissions of Mr. Sarma, learned Addl.
G.A. for the State-respondents that process of preparing the fresh
seniority list is under process pursuant to which the notification
dated 25.05.2022 is being issued, I direct the respondents to recast
the seniority list of the Assistant Headmasters who were appointed
under notification dated 01.02.1996, taking into account the
seniority position of the initial select list, the respondents published
under the said notification dated 01.02.1996 in appointing the
petitioners on ad-hoc basis in the post of Assistant Headmaster.
Needless to say, the respondents shall provide all consequential
benefits to the petitioners. It is made clear that all further
promotions of the petitioners would be made as per the recast
seniority list which will be prepared after receipt of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition
stands allowed and disposed."
[3] Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel submits that the ad-hoc service
period of the present appellant was regularized and his seniority was reckoned
w.e.f. the date of initial entry in service vide notification dated 10.07.2020 by
virtue of a judgment dated 10.07.2018 rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.438
of 2017.
[4] After publication of the final seniority list, the writ
petitioners/private respondents approached the Writ Court in WP(C) No.400 of
2021 claiming similar relief. They also contended that their ad-hoc services i.e.
from the date they assume charge of office on 30.08.1996 be also counted for
the purposes of seniority. The present appellant was also impleaded as private
respondent. The learned Writ Court upon hearing counsel for the parties
directed the respondents to recast the seniority of the Assistant Headmasters
who were appointed under notification dated 01.02.1996 taking into account the
seniority position of the initial select list. The learned Writ Court also directed
all consequential benefits to the petitioners and that further promotion of the
petitioners shall be made as per the recast seniority list.
[5] Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the private
respondents had approached the Writ Court after 4 years from the date of filing
of his writ petition. They were fence sitters and therefore, their cause of action
was barred by delay and laches since valuable right had accrued in favour of the
present appellant. It is submitted that the seniority list is being recast after
granting the benefit of ad-hoc service to the private respondents which would
upset the position of the present appellant who is shown above the private
respondents in the seniority list dated 10.07.2020. Therefore, the impugned
directions may be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Kaul
and others vs. Union of India and others, (2012) 7 SCC 610, in particular
paragraphs No.26, 27 and 28 quoted hereunder:
"26. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is manifest that a
litigant who invokes the jurisdiction of a court for claiming seniority,
it is obligatory on his part to come to the court at the earliest or at
least within a reasonable span of time. The belated approach is
impermissible as in the meantime interest of third parties gets
ripened and further interference after enormous delay is likely to
usher in a state of anarchy.
27. The acts done during the interregnum are to be kept in mind and
should not be lightly brushed aside. It becomes an obligation to take
into consideration the balance of justice or injustice in entertaining
the petition or declining it on the ground of delay and laches. It is a
matter of great significance that at one point of time equity that
existed in favour of one melts into total insignificance and paves the
path of extinction with the passage of time.
28. In the case at hand, as the factual matrix reveals, the appellants
knew about the approach by Parveen Kumar and others before the
Tribunal and the directions given by the Tribunal but they chose to
wait and to reap the benefit only after the verdict. This kind of
waiting is totally unwarranted."
[6] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners
submits that it is not in dispute that the private respondents entered into service
on ad-hoc basis and have been senior to the present appellant all through in
service. So far as the counting of ad-hoc services of the present private
respondents is concerned, the principle of law and the ratio rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers'
Association vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 SCC 715, applies to
both the present appellant and the private respondents. It is further submitted
that the private respondents were shown as senior in the seniority list dated
02.05.2005. The learned Writ Court in the case of the present appellant in its
judgment dated 10.07.2018 had also applied the ratio rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of G.P. Doval and others vs. Chief Secretary, Government of
U.P. and others, (1984) 4 SCC 329, and reiterated in the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering
Officers' Association (Supra). The private respondents approached the Writ
Court without any delay after the seniority list was recast showing the present
appellant as senior to them though he was junior to them in the earlier seniority
list of 02.05.2005. As such, the cause of action was neither delayed nor could
be barred by laches as the writ petitioners/private respondents approached the
Court without any delay.
[7] We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties.
[8] The facts borne from record reveal that at the time of initial entry
in service on ad-hoc basis, the private respondents were ranked senior to the
present appellant on the post of Assistant Headmaster under a special
recruitment drive held vide notification dated 01.02.1996. Not only the
appellant but the private respondents have also been promoted thereafter as
Headmasters. It is not in dispute that the seniority list of
Headmaster/Headmistress, High School/Inspector of Schools/Assistant
Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress, H.S. School/Project Officer etc. as on
31.01.2005 was published on 02.05.2005 wherein the private respondents
herein were ranked senior to the present appellant. The writ petitioner/present
appellant approached this Court earlier in WP(C) No.438 of 2017 with a prayer
that his services from the date of initial appointment i.e. in 1996 be regularized
with consequential seniority and benefits should flow therefrom. The learned
Writ Court, taking into consideration the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in
the case of G.P. Doval and others (Supra) and the Constitution Bench decision
in the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association
(Supra) and also similar direction passed in the case of Sri Chitta Debbarma
vs. The State of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.399 of 2013, found no
distinguishable feature in the case of the writ petitioner/present appellant which
required further scrutiny. Consequently, the respondents were directed to
regularize the service of the writ petitioner/present appellant on the post of
Assistant Headmaster, Higher Secondary School from the date when he was
appointed on ad-hoc basis i.e. when he assumed charge of office on 30.08.1996.
The respondents were further directed to recast the seniority of the present
appellant with all consequential benefits flowing thereof including promotion
and other benefits which the writ petitioner/present appellant was entitled under
the law within a stipulated period. The appellant got the benefit of ad-hoc
service counted for the purpose of reckoning his seniority from 30.08.1996.
Thereafter, the seniority list was published on 10.07.2020 in respect of the
cadre of Headmasters to which the private respondents herein and the appellant
had already been promoted. It is only after the publication of the revised final
seniority list of Assistant Headmaster and Headmaster to which cadre the
present private respondents belong along with the appellant herein, that they
approached the Writ Court as their seniority had been upset and they were
shown as junior at Sl. Nos.71, 97, 99, 59, 61, 100 whereas the appellant was
shown at Sl. No.4. As such, prior to that, the private respondents did not have
any occasion to question the seniority position as they ranked senior to the
appellant herein since 2005. If the appellant and the private respondent stand on
similar footing on the issue of counting of the period of ad-hoc service, the
State respondent ought to have applied the ratio of Direct Recruit Class II
Engineering Officers' Association (Supra) as relied upon by the learned Writ
Court in the case of the present appellant also, to all those similarly situated
persons, otherwise, it would not only result in discrimination vis-a-vis
individual persons who joined their services as Assistant Headmaster under the
same recruitment exercise on ad-hoc basis during the relevant year 1996 but
would also lead to multiplicity of litigation. If similarly situated persons are not
treated alike, it would not only cause injustice but lead to serious heart burn to
those who are made junior by revision of seniority list. The State is not
expected to compel every person to approach this Court for similar relief.
[9] The case of the present appellant has been decided by the learned
Writ Court earlier on the application of a principle laid down by the
Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Direct Recruit Class II
Engineering Officers' Association (Supra). If the private respondents and
others stand on similar footing, the State should have applied such principle
uniformly to similarly situated persons who have joined service under the same
recruitment exercise for the purposes of counting their ad-hoc service. It is,
rather, strange on the part of the appellant to contend that the appellant does not
have any grievance so far as counting of their ad-hoc services are concerned but
his seniority would get affected if the relief granted by the learned Writ Court
in the case of the private respondents herein who are similarly situated like him
are not interfered. This Court cannot lose sight of the larger objective to ensure
that the action of the State does not result in disparities and discrimination
between similarly situated persons often leading to multiplicity of litigations
before this Court.
[10] There is no quarrel so far as the principle laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Kaul and others (Supra) as relied by learned
counsel for the appellant is concerned. It is, indeed, obligatory on the part of a
litigant to come to the Court at the earliest or within a reasonable time
otherwise in the meantime, interest of third parties get ripened and further
interference after enormous delay is likely to usher in a state of anarchy.
However, when the facts of the case of Vijay Kumar Kaul and others (Supra)
is looked into, it appears that the appellants had approached the Apex Court on
denial of their plea to relate back their appointment as per their placement in the
merit list by ante-dating it from the date one Parveen Kumar had been issued
appointment letter in the same exercise. The appellants had participated in a
selection process conducted by a Second Field Ordnance Depot (2 FOD) in the
year 1984 for the post of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs). Despite their selection
for the post in question they were not issued appointment letters on the pretext
that there was a ban on appointments. In December 1993, pursuant to an order
dated 24.08.1993 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, respondent No.4 therein was issued appointment
letter, whereas appellants No.1 to 3 were given appointment in May 1996 on
the basis of directions issued on 24.07.1995 by the High Court of Jammu and
Kashmir in SWP No.1052 of 1991. Parveen Kumar and others, whose names
had figured in the select list, being aggrieved due to non-appointment, had
earlier preferred OA No.539-HP of 1986 before the Chandigarh Bench of the
Tribunal which had allowed it vide order dated 25.08.1987 directing the
respondent to issue appointment letters to them. The respondents instead of
appointing the said Parveen Kumar and others against the vacancies in 9 FOD,
where there were ten vacancies of LDCs, appointed them against the vacancies
falling in 2 FOD where there were 27 vacancies for LDCs with effect from
01.01.1990. Then Parveen Kumar and others filed second OA No.1476-PB of
1991 before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal with a prayer to issue a
direction to the respondents to appoint them as LDCs with effect from
01.05.1985 with all consequential benefits including seniority, pay and
allowances, etc. on the foundation that similarly situated persons were selected
along with them had been appointed with effect from 1985. The Tribunal
allowed the application vide order dated 13.10.2000 directing that their
appointment should be treated with effect from 01.05.1985 and they shall be
extended the benefit of fifty per cent of back wages and other consequential
reliefs. This order was called in question before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana. The Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 12.07.2001 set
aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent of grant of back wages but did not
interfere with the direction ante-dating their date of appointment and other
consequential reliefs granted by the Tribunal. After the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana passed the order, the respondents conferred the benefit on said
Parveen Kumar and others. Thereafter, the appellants i.e. Vijay Kumar Kaul
and others submitted a series of representations to extend to them the similar
benefits on the foundation of parity. The said prayer was negatived by the
respondents by order dated 21.07.2004 whereafter they approached the
Principal Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.2082 of 2004 alleging grave injustice
and seeking equal treatment vis-a-vis similarly placed employees. They also
complained that their seniority position and prospects for promotion would be
immensely affected. The Apex Court in the aforesaid circumstances, after
consideration of several decisions held that it is the duty of the Writ Court to
take into consideration the balance of justice or injustice in entertaining or
declining such petition on the ground of delay and laches. It was also observed
that a litigant who invokes the jurisdiction of a Court for claiming seniority
should come at the earliest or at least within a reasonable span of time
otherwise interest of third parties gets ripened and further interference after
enormous delay is likely to usher in a state of anarchy.
[11] The principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay
Kumar Kaul and others (Supra) would not strictly apply to the case of the
present parties at hand for the reason that the private respondents herein, had
the occasion to approach the Writ Court only after the seniority list was recast
on 10.07.2020 by placing the present appellant much ahead of them at Sl. No.4
by counting his ad-hoc services from the date of initial entry in service in 1996
though the writ petitioners/private respondents herein, also entered the service
in the same year under the same recruitment exercise and were shown senior in
the seniority list of 02.05.2005 above the present appellant for a continuous
period of 15 years till the seniority list was revised. The seniority had to be
recast pursuant to the directions of the Writ Court in the case of the present
appellant in WP(C) No.438 of 2017 wherein the learned Writ Court applied the
ratio of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association (Supra) and
directed the respondents to count the ad-hoc period of service of the present
appellant for the purposes of regularizing his service from the date of initial
entry in service. The principle relied upon by the learned Writ Court in the case
of present appellant from the case of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering
Officers' Association (Supra) should have been applied uniformly by the State
respondents to all similarly situated persons, otherwise grave disparity in
treatment of similarly situated persons was bound to result. The State
respondent chose to apply the direction of the Writ Court to the case of the
present appellant only and recasted the seniority list. The appellant does not
dispute that the private respondents stand on similar footing so far as their entry
in service as Assistant Headmaster under the said recruitment exercise is
concerned and also does not question the counting of their period of ad-hoc
service for the purposes of regularization in service from the initial date of entry
in service. If the principle laid down in the case of Direct Recruit Class-II
Engineering Officers' Association (Supra) is applied to all similarly situated
persons, there is no reason why the seniority of the private respondents also do
not deserve to be reckoned from the initial date of appointment as that of the
appellant. In the case of the Vijay Kumar Kaul and others (Supra) the
appellant approached the Principal Bench of the Tribunal for the first time in
the year 2004 whereas the respondent No.4, Parveen Kumar and others had
approached the Tribunal twice, first in 1987 and then again in 1991 whereafter
they were granted the relief of reckoning their services as LDCs w.e.f.
01.05.1985 with consequential benefits including seniority, pay and allowances.
In those circumstances, the Apex Court found that the appellants had not
approached the Court within a reasonable time and interest of third party had
got ripened which should not be interfered after enormous delay as it would
usher in a state of anarchy.
[12] In the facts of the present case, we feel that if an exercise is being
held for restoring the seniority of the private respondents on similar principles
as applied to the appellant and that too when the private respondents
approached the Writ Court without any delay after revision of the seniority list
on 10.07.2020, it cannot be said that their writ petition was barred by laches
and enormous delay which would upset a vested right of the appellant. The
present exercise of counting of ad-hoc services of the private respondents and
restoration of their seniority which may result consequent thereto, would only
remedy the injustice which would have resulted because of disparity in
treatment vis-a-vis, the appellant herein who is similarly situated.
[13] Having regard to the reasons recorded hereinabove and the
discussion made, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the
impugned judgment. The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Consequently, I.A. No.01 of 2023 is also dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Rudradeep RUDRADEEP BANERJEE Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP BANERJEE
Date: 2024.03.20 15:58:21 +05'30'
