Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 246 (TRI)

Sankar Sen v. Tripura Legislative Assembly

2014-06-26

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee for the petitioner and learned GA, Mr. T. Datta Majumder as well as learned counsel, Mr. R. Dasgupta for the respondents. 2. The simple case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the post of Lower Division Assistant (for short, 'LDA') on 08.03.1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 3300 - 7100/- in the Tripura Legislative Assembly under respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He is a graduate and he has also the qualification of Diploma in Bengali and English stenography and also having certificate in software operation. Since he was found qualified and efficient for working as a Personal Assistant (for short, 'P.A.'), he was appointed to the post of P.A. to Government Chief Whip in the Tripura Legislative Assembly for rendering services and since long he has been doing the job with all sincerity, devotion and to the satisfaction of the Government Chief Whip. Since he had/have been performing the duties of P.A., he made a representation to the Secretary of Tripura Legislative Assembly for considering his promotion to the post of P.A., which is indisputably a higher post with higher pay scale and responsibility then that of an LDA. The representation was turned down by Memo dated 18.12.2007 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). He thereafter, issued a demand notice through his learned counsel, Mr. Gopal Bhattacharjee, but his grievance was not redressed. Therefore, he filed the writ petition seeking direction that he is entitled to be promoted to the post of P.A. and to give him all benefits of the post. 3. Respondents contested the case by filing counter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner was substantially appointed in the post of LDA and there is no scope of promoting a LDA to the post of P.A. Normally, direct recruitment is made to the post of Stenographer and the post of P.A. is a promotional post of Stenographer and following the Rules, a Stenographer may be posted on promotion to the post of P.A. Since the petitioner has been appointed as a LDA, promotion to the post of P.A. could not be considered. 4. The petitioner by filing a rejoinder affidavit also brought on record that in the past, there were instance of some other people appointed in the post of P.A. from the clerical post. 4. The petitioner by filing a rejoinder affidavit also brought on record that in the past, there were instance of some other people appointed in the post of P.A. from the clerical post. 5. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that this Court is a Court of equity and to render substantial justice to the petitioner, who has been admittedly working as P.A. since long from 1996, can redress the grievance of the petitioner by giving necessary direction to the respondents to give him promotion to the post of P.A. Since similarly situated people in the past were considered for such promotion. It is also submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that though those cannot be treated as Government orders, Annexure-1 and 2, are two certificates issued by the Government Chief Whip, who has certified that the petitioner had been working under them as P.A. effectively and efficiently with all sincerity and based on those certificates, the respondents would consider his promotion to the post of P.A., whereas, that has been refused. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-R1 series, which consists of an order dated 9th October, 1969, which reveals that one Haridas Bhattacharjee, a permanent clerk of the Assembly Secretariat was appointed as Personal Assistant temporarily up to the period of 28.02.1970 with particular pay scale meant for the Personal Assistant and the appointment was made temporarily and not as a promotion. By a subsequent Notification dated 9th April, 1985, Sri Haridas Bhattacharjee, Personal Assistant was promoted to the post of First Personal Assistant with effect from the date of taking over of charge and a subsequent Memo dated 11.07.1988 shows that Haridas Bhattacharjee was also promoted to the post of Private Secretary. 6. Countering the submission of learned senior counsel, learned GA, Mr. Datta Majumder and learned counsel, Mr. Dasgupta submitted that the petitioner was substantially appointed as an LDA and the Service Rule of LDA and P.A. are completely different and the petitioner in no manner can be appointed or promoted as P.A. from the post of LDA. Regarding appointment of Haridas Bhattacharjee, the respondents submitted additional counter affidavit stating that in 1984 Service Rules were framed. Before 1984, there was no Service Rules and by administrative order appointments were made. Regarding appointment of Haridas Bhattacharjee, the respondents submitted additional counter affidavit stating that in 1984 Service Rules were framed. Before 1984, there was no Service Rules and by administrative order appointments were made. Haridas Bhattacharjee was appointed in the post of Personal Assistant directly and from the post of Personal Assistant, he was promoted/absorbed to the post of P.A. So, the case of Haridas Bhattacharjee cannot be an instance to consider the case of the petitioner. 7. Recruitment, promotion, service condition etc. of a public servant, it is settled law, should be according to the concerned Service Rule of the employee. There cannot be any recruitment or promotion de horse the Rules. Annexure 1 and 2 are two certificates given by the Government Chief Whip on different dates which shows that the petitioner had been working as a P.A. to the Government Chief Whip. It is not disputed that he was having with all qualification of working as a P.A. It is also not disputed that he is working as P.A. to Government Chief Whip, but it is strongly disputed by the respondents that there is no post of P.A. to Government Chief Whip and Government Chief Whip are only entitled to an LDA and if an LDA working as P.A. and certified by the Government Chief Whip that cannot amount to a Government order in respect of the service of the petitioner in the post. 8. I cannot agree with the submission of learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty that simply because the Government Chief Whip certified that the petitioner has been working as a P.A. to Government Chief Whip, he is entitled to be promoted to the post of P.A. Promotion must be following the Service Rules. It is an admitted position that the post of P.A. is a promotional post from the post of Stenographer and the Stenographers are appointed by direct recruitment. The petitioner was appointed in the post of LDA, which is a different stream. So, the petitioner as of right cannot claim his promotion to the post of P.A. from the post of LDA. 9. The case of Haridas Bhattacharjee, as it appears, in the year 1969, while he was a permanent clerk, he was temporarily appointed as a Personal Assistant, not on promotion. Thereafter, in the year 1970, he was appointed as a Personal Assistant. 9. The case of Haridas Bhattacharjee, as it appears, in the year 1969, while he was a permanent clerk, he was temporarily appointed as a Personal Assistant, not on promotion. Thereafter, in the year 1970, he was appointed as a Personal Assistant. Admittedly, such appointment was made before any Service Rule came into force. If it was done by an administrative order de horse any Rules, it cannot be treated as an instance or precedence to consider the petitioner's case on the principle of equity. I am not at all agreeable with the submission of learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty that Haridas Bhattacharjee's case should be an instance to consider the case of the petitioner in a similar way. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. 11. The petitioner, however, will be at liberty to approach the authority to consider his case, if permitted by law.