Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 211 (TRI)

Rakhal Chandra Das v. State of Tripura

2014-06-05

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel, Mr. K.K. Pal for respondent No. 3. 2. The simple case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the post of Fishery Assistant in the year 1978 on ad-hoc basis. Respondent No. 3 was also appointed similarly and they were regularized on 03.05.1980. By office order dated 25.04.1997(Annexure-1 to the writ petition) the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and others(total 261 Fishery Assistants) were confirmed in the grade of Fishery Assistant w.e.f. 01.01.1997. The name of the petitioner figured in Sl. No. 60 and the name of respondent No. 3 figured in Sl. No. 105. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 belonged to Scheduled Castes community. The Department, thereafter prepared a final seniority list and published the same vide Memo. dated 30.09.1994(Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and in that seniority list the name of the petitioner figured at Sl. No. 61 and the name of respondent No. 3 figured at Sl. No. 107. The petitioner was promoted in the post of Investigator (Statistics) by an office order dated 20.11.1995 in the pay scale of Rs.1,300-3,220/- and from the date of promotion he was serving in the post of Investigator. Respondent No. 3 who was all along junior to the petitioner was directly promoted to the post of Fishery Inspector by office order dated 02.02.2001(Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in the pay scale of Rs.5,000-10,300/-. The post of Investigator is in between the posts of Fishery Assistant and Fishery Inspector having a lower pay scale than that of the pay scale of Fishery Inspector and the petitioner being holding the post of Investigator was due to be promoted to the post of Fishery Inspector before respondent No. 3, but respondent Nos. 1 and 2 depriving the petitioner promoted respondent No. 3 to the post of Fishery Inspector in a higher pay scale and, as a result, the petitioner has been deprived. The petitioner made representation and subsequently issued lawyer's notice to promote him to the post of Fishery Inspector and to give him service benefits from the date his junior was promoted but received no positive response. The petitioner made representation and subsequently issued lawyer's notice to promote him to the post of Fishery Inspector and to give him service benefits from the date his junior was promoted but received no positive response. He issued legal notice(Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and in response to the legal notice the respondents by writing letter dated 29.06.2006(Annexure-8 to the writ petition) informed his learned counsel that the petitioner was regularized in the post of Investigator (Statistics) on 22.04.1997 and since the petitioner accepted his promotion to the post of Investigator, which was not a feeder post, there was no question of promoting the petitioner to the post of Fishery Inspector. The petitioner, therefore, filed a writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to give him the service benefits of Fishery Inspector from the date his junior (respondent No. 3) was promoted to the post of Fishery Inspector. 3. Respondents contended that the post of Investigator (Statistics) is not a feeder post of Fishery Inspector. The petitioner was given promotion to the post of Investigator (Statistics) in the year 1995 and he accepted the promotion and enjoyed the benefits attached to the promotional post. Since the post of Investigator is not the feeder post of Inspector of Fisheries, the petitioner's promotion could not have been considered by the Department and his juniors, who were in the service, were promoted to the post of Fishery Inspector. The petitioner since enjoyed the benefits of the promotional post from the year 1995, he cannot claim the benefit of the post of Fishery Inspector which was given to respondent No. 3 and others. 4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were appointed and regularized in the post of Fishery Assistant on the same date. They were confirmed by Memo. dated 25.04.1997 w.e.f. 01.01.1997 and a final seniority list of the Fishery Assistants was also prepared and published. As per Annexure-1 and Annexure-2, i.e. the list of confirmation and the seniority list, admittedly, respondent No. 3 is junior to the petitioner and both of them belonged to S.C. category. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Investigator in the year 1995 in the pay scale of Rs.1,300-3,220/-. The petitioner accepted the promotion and enjoyed the promotional post. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Investigator in the year 1995 in the pay scale of Rs.1,300-3,220/-. The petitioner accepted the promotion and enjoyed the promotional post. His junior, i.e. the respondent No. 3, admittedly was promoted in the post of Fishery Inspector in the year 2001(Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in the pay scale of Rs.5,000-10,300/-. It is also an admitted position that the post of Fishery Inspector is a superior post of Investigator. It is contended by the respondents that the post of Investigator is not the feeder post of Fishery Inspector, and therefore, the petitioner could not be promoted. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was informed or any option was taken from the petitioner while promoting him to the post of Investigator that he will not get any further promotion to any superior post. Under such circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner since was promoted to the post of Investigator he could not be promoted to the post of Fishery Inspector, and therefore, his juniors were promoted to the post of Fishery Investigator. 5. Learned Addl. G.A. also has submitted that the promotion of respondent No. 3 was given in the year 2001 but the petitioner approached the Court in the year 2006 by filing the writ petition and so the claim of the petitioner is hit by the principles of delay and laches. As I find on record the petitioner made representation and also issued advocate's notice and, thereafter he was informed that the post of Investigator is not the feeder post of Fishery Inspector and, therefore promotion to the post of Fishery Inspector was not possible and after that he filed the writ petition. Therefore, I find no reason at all to hold that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is submitted at the Bar that the petitioner has retired in the meantime. I have no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of promotion in the post of Fishery Inspector at least from the date his junior, i.e. respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Fishery Inspector, i.e. 2nd February, 2001. I have no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of promotion in the post of Fishery Inspector at least from the date his junior, i.e. respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Fishery Inspector, i.e. 2nd February, 2001. The respondents, are therefore, directed to give all service benefits to the petitioner in the post of Fishery Inspector from the date his junior, i.e. the respondent No. 3 was promoted to the post of Fishery Inspector, i.e. from 02.02.2001. All the benefits as per rules should be given to the petitioner within three months from today. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 7. Parties to bear their own costs.