Sarajit Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

Petitioner's grievance is that he is denied promotion to the post of UDC while his colleagues and juniors were considered and promoted.

Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner joined the post of LDC on regular basis in the Government department on 16.06.2009. Respondents No.5 to 7 were also selectees of the same batch. They joined the post of LDC on 17.06.2009, 20.06.2009 and 29.06.2009 respectively. Though the petitioner has contended that the said respondents No.5 to 7 having joined the post later than him were junior to him in the cadre of LDC, the same cannot be accepted without further examination since the appointees of the same batch would carry their seniority on the basis of rank in the select list and not the date of joining. However, this aspect is not any longer important since what has happened is that in the year 2016. Respondents No.5 to 7 were promoted to the post of UDC and they continue to occupy such promotional posts. The petitioner was not considered and promoted. He has filed this petition in which the respondents have appeared and filed reply. In the affidavit strange stand taken is that when the respondents No.5 to 7 were considered for promotion, the name of the petitioner did not appear in the final seniority list of LDC and, therefore, his case was not considered. The official respondents do not offer any explanation for non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the seniority list of LDC. They also do not give satisfactory explanation for not correcting this error on their own. All they say is after the DPC which met on 18.09.2014 (when the petitioner was not considered since his name did not figure in the seniority list) there has not been any DPC for considering promotions.

The situation created by the department is quite unsatisfactory. There is absolutely no reason, none cited how the name of a regular Government servant who was holding the post since several years, did not figure in the seniority list. On account of this though he was due for consideration for promotion, such consideration was not granted. Subsequently, as per the account of the authorities his name was included in the seniority list. Again how the reappearance of the name after earlier mysterious disappearance is also not explained. In any case, as noted above, subsequently the respondents should have joined a review DPC and considered the case of the petitioner as on the date when his juniors were considered and if found fit, granted promotion to the post of UDC with retrospective effect.

Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Mangal Debbarma submitted that possibly because of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court in dispute regarding reservation in promotion the Government was unable to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. When the right of the petitioner for being considered for promotion had arisen long before any such dispute reached the Supreme Court or any order was passed by the Supreme Court this cannot be the reason for non- consideration of the case of the petitioner.

In the result, petition is disposed of with following directions:

The official respondents shall draw a review DPC to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of UDC as on the date when his colleagues/juniors respondents No.5 to 7 were considered. If the petitioner is found fit for promotion, such promotion shall be granted with retrospective effect from the date on which the said respondents were promoted for all purposes except for payment of actual pay and allowances.

Entire exercise shall be completed within three months from today.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.