Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 298 (GAU)

Subhas Chandra Roy v. State of Tripura and Ors.

2001-10-05

B.B.DEB

body2001
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for issuing a writ of Certiorari cancelling the final Seniority List d bearing No. F. 1 (203)-ICAT/86/Estt/5815-33 dated 27.7.1990 and also for directing the fresh Seniority List to be prepared placing the petitioner at serial No.21 instead of his present position at serial No. 38 in the post of Forum Supervisor, subsequently to the redesignated post of Information and Cultural Officer under the Directorate of 1C AT, Govt of Tripura. 2. The petitioner's case, in short, is that while the petitioner was serving on being promoted in the post of Information Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 1,700-3,980, he along with as many as twenty five other incumbents have been entertained against the redesignated post of Information and Cultural Officer wef 10.12.1987 vide Memo No.F.6(l)-ICAT/87/Estt/7514-44 dated 6.9.1990. Prior to amalgamation the posts of Forum Supervisor, Feature Writer, Assistant Information Officer were the feeder posts of Chief Organiser and the post of Junior Information Officer formed a separate cadre, but subsequently the post of Junior Information Officer and Forum Supervisor had been amalgamated and the upgraded post after amalgamation has been redesignated as Information Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 560-1,300. According to the petitioner, the private respondent Nos. 4 to 20 having held the posts of Junior Information Officer prior to amalgamation were juniors to the petitioner in service and as such after amalgamation under the redesignated post of Information Officer, the petitioner should have been shown senior to the erstwhile Junior Information Officers. 3. To controvert the same, the learned Senior Govt Advocate Mr. UB Saha, assisted by Mr. BR Das Roy, learned counsel for the State-respondents having referred paragraph 19 (ii) of the counter affidavit submits that the incumbents holding the erstwhile posts of Forum Supervisor and the incumbents holding the posts of Junior Information Officer had never discharged identical works with similar responsibility though their pay scales were identical and as such after amalgamation in the upgraded post of Information Officer, the erstwhile Junior Information Officers were preferentially treated having regard to their wider area of works with higher responsibility compared to the incumbent holding the erstwhile posts of Forum Supervisor, in fixing the seniority and as such the petitioner should not have any grievance relating to fixation of his seniority. 4. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the respective pleadings, it appears that the erstwhile post of Forum Supervisor held by the petitioner and the erstwhile post of Junior Information Officer held by the private respondents had the identical pay scale and the petitioner occupied the " post of Forum Supervisor prior to the private respondents. So far the length of service is concerned in the erstwhile different posts with identical pay scale, the petitioner was senior, but while two or more posts are amalgamated in a single cadre post, the incumbents drawing higher pay scale in the erstwhile posts would get seniority over those who Were under a lower pay scale. But if the incumbents holding different cadre posts having identical pay scale are amalgamated in a single cadre post, normally the incumbent holding the erstwhile post longer than the others, could be treated as senior in the amalgamated post, but in the present case, though the petitioner holding the erstwhile post of Forum Supervisor was allowed the identical pay scale of the erstwhile incumbents holding the posts of Junior Information Officer, but the zone of works to be performed with a degree of responsibility appeared to be higher attached to the post of Junior Information Officer than that of the Forum Supervisor. According to the counter-affidavit filed by the State-respondents, the incumbents holding the post of Junior Information Officer and Forum Supervisor having identical pay scale have been discharging different nature of works with different responsibilities having different zone of works. The Junior Information Officer usually had to discharge the works of publication, song and drama field publicity, community radio and TV including film etc while the incumbent holding the post of Forum Supervisor was supposed to look after the works of only community radio and TV. The Junior Information Officer was placed as in-charge of the Sub Divisional office of the department. For conve­nience sake, the relevant portion of the counter-affidavit is reproduced below: "'Though both the posts of JIO (Junior Information Officer) and Forum Supervisor were in the identical scale, but the status was not same. According to the job specification of the Department, Forum Supervisor was supposed to look after the works of only Community Radio and TV while the JIO was supposed to look after the works of publication. According to the job specification of the Department, Forum Supervisor was supposed to look after the works of only Community Radio and TV while the JIO was supposed to look after the works of publication. Song and Drama including field publicity, Community Radio and TV including film etc and the JIO was in-charge of Sub Divisional Offices of this Department." 5. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder controverting the afore cited nature and responsibility of works performed by the Forum Supervisor vis-a-vis the works and responsibility performed by the Junior Information Officer as quoted above. 6. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the erstwhile Junior Information Officers, the private respondents herein, discharged works with higher responsibilities having larger area of works compared to the incumbents holding the posts of erstwhile Forum Supervisor like the petitioner. 7. On receipt of the representations against the finally published Seniority List dated 27.7.1990, the authority constituted a special committee for reviewing the seniority matter headed by Joint Director, information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism as Chairman with three other officers of the department, they considered the representation submitted by the petitioner. The committee had taken into consideration the works and performance done by the incumbents holding the erstwhile posts of Junior Information Officer and Forum Supervisor. The related consideration recorded by the Special Committee is reproduced below: 'Though both the posts of JIO and Forum Supervisor were in the identical scale, but the status was not same. According to the job specification of the Department, Forum Supervisor was supposed to look after the works of only Community Radio and TV while the JIO, was supposed to look after the works of all the medias (i.e. visual, audiovisual, print, press and publication. Song and Drama including field publicity, community radio & TV including film etc) and die JIO was in-charge of Sub-Divisional Offices of this Department. Having regard the afore quoted reasons, the Special Committee found no fault in the finally published seniority list of Information and Cultural Officers. 8. Song and Drama including field publicity, community radio & TV including film etc) and die JIO was in-charge of Sub-Divisional Offices of this Department. Having regard the afore quoted reasons, the Special Committee found no fault in the finally published seniority list of Information and Cultural Officers. 8. From the afore quoted consideration recorded by the Special Committee, it reveals that though the petitioner holding the erstwhile posts of Forum Supervisor d was in the identical pay scale with those of the incumbents holding the posts of Junior Information Officer, but the status of the erstwhile Junior Information Officer admittedly was superior in substance because the erstwhile Junior Information Officer was placed as in-charge of the Sub Division having larger field of works with higher responsibility compared to the incumbents holding the posts of Forum Supervisor like the petitioner. 9. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, in fixing seniority in the amalgamated redesignated post of Information and Cultural Officer, the respo­ndent official authority committed no wrong or illegality and as such the impugned finally published Seniority List warrants no interference in this writ petition. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.