Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 144 (TRI)

Manju Saha v. State of Tripura

2014-04-09

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. B. Bhattacharji for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk(LDC) under the Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department on 26.04.1974. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her and she was censored in the disciplinary proceeding. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding a DPC was held and some other similarly situated LDCs were promoted by an order dated 26.09.1987 and her case was kept pending due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. Ultimately, she was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk(UDC) on 10.10.1990 with prospective effect. She made representation for giving her promotion with retrospective effect from the date of the promotion given to other similarly situated LDCs, i.e. w.e.f. the year 1987 but such benefit was not given to her. She filed WP(C) No. 211 of 1999 in the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench but the writ petition was withdrawn on 22.03.1999. In the order allowing withdrawal of the writ petition certain observations were made to reconsider her case in respect of the benefits she claimed. The order so passed by the High Court reads as follows: Upon hearing Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, Mr. Biswas in his usual frankness made a prayer for allowing the petitioner to withdraw this petition. According to me, the prayer is reasonable and it is allowed. The matter is hereby closed on withdrawal. However, considering the statement made by the petitioner in her writ petition and also her long services as UD clerk, this Court hope and trust that the respondents/Competent authority shall re-consider her case, namely, the benefits for retrospective regularization of her services in the post of U.D. Clerk with effect from 19.1.1987 in accordance with the related Rules. Thereafter, she filed a representation on 16.02.2000 but got no response. She thereafter filed the present writ petition in the year 2005 seeking direction to the respondents to give her the effect of promotion as UDC from 19.01.1987 and also to set aside the order of promotion dated 13.08.2003 in respect of respondent No. 3. 3. Thereafter, she filed a representation on 16.02.2000 but got no response. She thereafter filed the present writ petition in the year 2005 seeking direction to the respondents to give her the effect of promotion as UDC from 19.01.1987 and also to set aside the order of promotion dated 13.08.2003 in respect of respondent No. 3. 3. The State respondents, inter alia, contended that the petitioner did not approach for the benefit in time and, therefore, writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is also contended that DPC did not consider her promotion w.e.f. 1987 for valid reason since she was found guilty in the disciplinary proceeding drawn against her. The petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed in the writ petition. 4. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik appearing for the petitioner has submitted that censor cannot be termed as a major punishment and one cannot be debarred from usual promotion because of a punishment of censor. It is an admitted fact that she was not given promotion in the year 1987 only for the reason that a disciplinary proceeding was pending against her. So, when the disciplinary proceeding ended with the punishment of censor and subsequently the authority taken up her case, she would have been given promotion with retrospective effect from the year 1987. It is, however, contended by Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel that there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in taking up the issue but for that reason itself she should not be deprived of her legitimate benefit which she was otherwise entitled to get. 5. Learned Addl. G.A. submitted that the writ petition itself suffers from delay and laches and, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. 6. The petitioner entered the job as LDC in the year 1974. Some of her colleagues who were similarly situated were promoted to the post of UDC in the year 1987. She was not given the promotion with those of her colleagues because of the fact that a disciplinary proceeding was pending against her. In the disciplinary proceeding, the disciplinary authority found her guilty and imposed on her a punishment of censor. Some of her colleagues who were similarly situated were promoted to the post of UDC in the year 1987. She was not given the promotion with those of her colleagues because of the fact that a disciplinary proceeding was pending against her. In the disciplinary proceeding, the disciplinary authority found her guilty and imposed on her a punishment of censor. No doubt, the punishment of censor cannot be termed as a major punishment but it is a fact that she was found guilty by the disciplinary authority, and therefore to their wisdom the authority while giving her promotion did not give her the benefits with retrospective effect. She was given promotion on 10.10.1990 prospectively. She did not challenge that order. She filed a writ petition after nine years but to her wisdom the writ petition was withdrawn on 22.03.1999, definitely for some laches on the part of the petitioner. There were some observations in the order to reconsider her case but even thereafter she did not approach the authority immediately after the order was passed. She approached the authority after about a year of passing the order to reconsider her case. The present writ petition is filed five years thereafter, i.e. in the year 2005 seeking the relief which was due to her in the year 1987. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition, therefore, is clearly barred by delay and laches and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief for such delay and laches. 7. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed but in the circumstances without cost.