Md. Abdul Matlib vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who is working as the Group 'D' employee has challenged the action of the respondents No. 1 and 2 whereby the respondents No. 3 to 10 have been promoted to the post of Panchayat Secretary under the Directorate of Panchayat, Government of Tripura. Admittedly the petitioner is senior to those private respondents, but he has been denied the promotion arbitrarily. In this context, the promotion order dated 06.09.2017 (Annexure P-3 to the writ petition) has been challenged.

Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the private respondents were also working as Group 'D' employee and they have been promoted to the post of Panchayat Secretary in consideration of their service, they have rendered. The petitioner was senior in the grade of the Group 'D' to the private respondents, but his case was not considered despite the petitioner does fulfill all the requisite qualification and qualifying service for getting such promotion. In this regard, there is no dispute.

Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the cases of a few Group 'D' employees including that of the petitioner was deferred as the verification of the mark sheet was not complete at the time of issuance of the order of promotion.

From the communication dated 09.03.2017 (Annexure R-5 to the counter affidavit) it appears that a letter was written to the Director, DDE-Madurai Kamaraj University for verification of the mark sheet of the petitioner and others. From the communication dated 09.03.2017, it further appears that the petitioner and other 5 Group 'D' employees had been recommended by the Departmental Promotional Committee (for short the DPC) for promotion to the post of Panchayat Secretary subject to verification of genuineness of mark sheet. Those mark sheets were sent for verification to the said DDE-Madurai Kamaraj University. From the communication dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure R-6 to the counter affidavit) it clearly transpires that the said University namely Madurai Kamaraj University has clearly stated that the mark sheet of the petitioner was from that University and the certificates are all genuine.

Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel has submitted that in view of the memorandum dated 01.04.2017 (Annexure R-7 to the counter affidavit) issued by the Additional Secretary, Government of Tripura, GA (P&T) Department, the promotion could not be given, even after receipt of the report from the University for the stay order passed by the Apex Court, no promotion could be given.

Be that as it may, the substantive controversy has been resolved as the impediment that was apparently shown for withholding promotion of the petitioner has been removed as the verification of the mark sheet was complete and the mark sheet of the petitioner was found genuine. Hence, the respondents are directed to promote the petitioner from the date when his juniors i.e. the private respondents were appointed on promotion by the order dated 06.01.2017 (Annexure P-3 to the writ petition). Till the date of assuming the promotion post, the pay and allowances of the petitioner shall be determined notionally, but his pay shall be released from the date of joining. Since there is an apparent impediment in executing the promotion order, the respondents are further directed that when the stay order as passed by the Apex Court is vacated and/or the pending case, in which the said stay order has been passed, is finally decided, the petitioner shall be promoted by issuing a formal order of promotion in terms of this order within a month therefrom,.

Having observed thus, the writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be furnished to Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel for onward transmission.