Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 235 (TRI)

Anand Kumar Chowdhury v. State of Tripura

2014-06-23

S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Havilder (Clerk) under the Tripura State Rifles and when a question arose as to whether they were appointed on tenure basis or not, for determination a high-level committee was constituted by the Government of Tripura, in the Home Department. On reading of the recommendation of the said committee, the petitioners perceived they were not fixed tenure basis but their appointment was on a regular basis. The petitioners thus averred that they were not appointed on fixed tenure basis but on regular basis, based on the memorandum dated 27.11.2004, Annexure-F to the writ petition. The memorandum dated 27.11.2004 is the recommendation of the said high level committee constituted by the Government of Tripura for giving their finding and recommendation on certain issues relating to the Civil Police Organization and the State Rifles. After examination of the issues as referred, the following recommendation was made by the said high level committee. (ii) There is no provision in the TSR Recruitment Rules for tenure employment of ex-servicemen. The Committee could not understand why the system of tenure employment particularly for ex-servicemen in the TSR Bns has been adopted. Tenure employment of the ex-servicemen in the TSR Bns appears to have become a concern for the ex-servicemen people in the State. The Committee feels that as a special category of reserved candidates ex-servicemen should be given employment on regular basis. Because, these ex-servicemen are expected to get some sort of special consideration from the State Government after they return from the Defence Services rendering their dedicated service for the safety and security of the nation. Some ex-servicemen who were given employment on tenure basis in TSR Bns are being released/likely to be released. The question of their release may be reviewed by the Home Deptt. on priority basis so that these Ex-Servicemen personnel do not become jobless. 3. But on the basis that the petitioners are on a fixed tenure basis the seniority positions of the petitioner as notified on 28.07.2007 were altered. Before such change in the seniority positions were altered, the petitioners were promoted to the rank of the Naik Subedar (Clerk) w.e.f. 08.01.2007 on the basis of the recommendation of the duly constituted DPC. 3. But on the basis that the petitioners are on a fixed tenure basis the seniority positions of the petitioner as notified on 28.07.2007 were altered. Before such change in the seniority positions were altered, the petitioners were promoted to the rank of the Naik Subedar (Clerk) w.e.f. 08.01.2007 on the basis of the recommendation of the duly constituted DPC. However, the petitioners were promoted by two separate orders available at Annexures-K and L. After the impugned redetermination of the seniority, the orders of promotion dated 25.01.2007 and 08.01.2007 were recalled and cancelled by the order dated 25.08.2007 w.e.f. 20.08.2008, Annexure-N to the writ petition in respect of the petitioner No. 2, Umesh Prasad Singh and by the order dated 25.08.2008 with immediate effect, Annexure-O to the writ petition in respect of the petitioner No. 1, Sri Anand Kumar Chowdhury. The basis of the cancellation of promotion by those orders is the redetermination of the seniority as made by the order dated 20.08.2008, Annexure-M to the writ petition. The order dated 20.08.2008, Annexure-M to the writ petition, the order dated 25.08.2008, Annexure-N to the writ petition and the order dated 25.08.2008, Annexure-O to the writ petition are challenged in this writ petition. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. GA has at the outset submitted that the fresh order as to the seniority has been published under No. 4681-92/F.26(3)/IGP/Adm & Trg Cell/11 dated 07.06.2012, a copy of which has been placed before this Court for perusal. Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioners has not raised any objection in respect of placing the copy of the said order dated 07.06.2012 for obvious reasons. 5. It appears from the said order dated 07.06.2012 that the petitioner No. 1 has been placed in seniority position No. 8 whereas the petitioner No. 2 has been placed at serial No. 9 showing their appointment as Nb/Sub(Clk) w.e.f. 03.01.2007. Having confronted with the subsequent development that has been reflected in the order dated 07.06.2012, this writ petition has become infructuous inasmuch as the substantial reliefs as sought in the writ petition has been granted by the respondents. To obviate any confusion in future the impugned orders are set aside and quashed. The petitioners be treated to have been promoted in the post of Nb/Sub(Clk) w.e.f. 03.01.2007 and their initial appointment have to be treated as made on regular basis not on fixed tenure basis. To obviate any confusion in future the impugned orders are set aside and quashed. The petitioners be treated to have been promoted in the post of Nb/Sub(Clk) w.e.f. 03.01.2007 and their initial appointment have to be treated as made on regular basis not on fixed tenure basis. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the interim order dated 05.09.2008 no consequential order is required to be passed. The order dated 07.06.2012 be placed in the record for future reference.