Bhajan Ch. Debnath vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] The petitioner has prayed for granting promotion to the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 09.07.1998 and thereafter has Accounts Officer w.e.f. 28.08.2004 which should be granted with consequential benefits such as arrears of salary with interest. The petition has a chequered history. Brief necessary facts may be noted. The petitioner joined to the department of Forest State of Tripura as an Upper Division Clerk. In the year 1992 a departmental inquiry was instituted against him. The petitioner filed a writ petition Civil Rule No. 394 of 1994 before the High Court (Agartala Bench) which came to be disposed of by a judgment dated 13th March, 2001 requiring the respondents to complete the departmental proceedings expeditiously. It was observed that if the petitioner is exonerated of the charges his case for promotion along with his juniors be considered.

[2] The departmental inquiry concluded upon an order dated 05.11.2001 being passed by the disciplinary authority dropping all charges against the petitioner.

[3] It appears that the petitioner was facing yet another departmental inquiry which had result into imposition of penalty, which the petitioner had challenged before the learned Single Bench of the High Court unsuccessfully. However, in an appeal by a judgment dated 05.08.2008 the Division Bench had allowed the petition and quashed the penalty order dated 25.07.2003.

[4] In view of such developments, the case for considering the petitioner for promotions which were previously held up, was undertaken by a Review Department Promotion Committee, meeting of which was convened on 27.05.2009.

[5] The Department Promotion Committee in its report noted that the petitioner's juniors were promoted to the post of Accountant on 27.11.1991 and the petitioner was found fit for promotion and accordingly recommended for his promotion from such date on notional basis.

[6] The DPC thereafter examined the case of the petitioner for further promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. In this respect, while recommending the petitioner for promotion to the said post from 11.05.2007, the DPC in his said report had observed as under:

"Thereafter, the DPC examined the issue relating to his claim for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. He claims for promotion to the post of O/S w.e.f. 09.07.1998 when Sri Parimal Ch. Das and Milan Ch. Das junior to Sri Debnath in the entry grade of LDC were promoted to the post of S/S. Promotion of Sri Milan Ch. Das and Sri Parimal Ch. Das were considered in the DPC meeting held on 24.03.1998 when the status of available vacant post were as follows:

(SC-3, ST-4 = Total 07)

Sri Milan Ch. Das & Sri Parimal Ch. Das were promoted to the post of O/S under reserved quota for Scheduled Caste. No un-reserved category candidates junior to Sri Debnath were promoted to the post of O/S w.e.f. 09.07.1998 as claimed by him. Hence, his claim for promotion to the post of O/S w.e.f. 09.07.1998 could not be recommended. However, the DPC noted that junior to Sri Bhajan Ch. Debnath were promoted to the post of O/S w.e.f. 11.05.2007. The DPC consulted the Recruitment Rules for the post of O/S seniority position of Sri Debnathand performance report as per ACRs and recommends promotion of Sri Bhajan Ch. Debnath to the post of O/S (Group-B) in the un-revised pay Scale of Rs. 6,500-12,300/-. Since there was no vacant post of O/S available on 11.05.2007 the DPC observed that a supernumerary post of O/S may be created by the Department and the recommended promotion implemented. The benefit of retrospective promotion should be notional."

[7] Consequently, the petitioner was also promoted to the post of O/S w.e.f. 11.05.2007 in terms of the recommendation of the review DPC. It may be recorded that the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31.07.2008.

[8] In the present petition the grievance of the petitioner is that he was not granted promotion from the due dates. When his juniors were promoted, the petitioner was facing departmental inquiry/penalty. The departmental inquiry was dropped the petitioner was exonerated false charges. The penalty order was set aside by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court the petitioner therefore had to be given promotion from the due dates.

[9] The report of the DPC will however suggest that the petitioner was actually granted promotion to the post of Accountant with retrospective effect from 27.11.1991 when his immediate juniors were promoted and which promotion was held up on account of pending inquiry is against him. With respect to this aspect the petitioner has no grievance.

[10] Case of the petitioner is that he should even granted further promotion to the post of O/S w.e.f. 09.07.1998 when according to him his juniors were promoted. The minutes of the DPC meeting dated 27.05.2009 however, present a different picture. In the said minutes it is recorded that the persons promoted to the post of O/S w.e.f. 09.07.1998 were all against the reserved vacancies of ST and SC. No person from open category was promoted. The petitioner who belongs to general category therefore cannot base this case for promotion to the said date. The DPC also recorded that the first case of that junior of the petitioner in general category being promoted was on 11.05.2007 and therefore, the petitioner was recommended for promotion from such date.

[11] We do not find any error with the stand of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that in the meeting of a DPC held on 14.08.2001 four persons from un-reserved category were promoted to the post of O/S. However, the minutes of the DPC of the same meeting would show that none of the persons so promoted were junior to the petitioner. All the four promotees were holding the post of Accountant since the year 1977 and 1978. The petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Accountant w.e.f. 27.11.1991.

In the result we are apart from gross delay and laches, on merits also the petitioner has not made out any case. The petition is dismissed.