NARESH CHANDRA SAHA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant joined the Tripura Civil Service on October 30, 1949 and was posted as a probationer Divisional Purchasing Officer, Dharmnagar. In 1953 the Tripura Civil Service was split into two cadres-senior officers being absorbed as Sub-Divisional Officers and junior officers as Sub-Treasury Officers. The appellant was absorbed as Sub-Treasury Officer with effect from April 1, 1950. On May 10, 1954, the appellant was appointed officiating Sub-Divisional Officer with effect from September 10, 1953. By order dated May 12, 1954, the appellant was reverted to the post of Sub-Treasury Officer with effect from May 6, 1954. The appellant made several representations to the Chief Commissioner but without success. The appellant was suspended by order dated May 6, 1957, for failure to obey the orders of the Additional District Magistrate and he was dismissed with effect from July 3, 1958, by the order of the Chief Commissioner.

(2.) The appellant moved a petition in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner at Tripura challenging the orders of suspension and dismissal. On February 19, 1960 the Court set aside the impugned orders. By order dated November 7, 1960 the Chief commissioner reinstated the appellant to the post of Superintendent of Surveys and by the same order reverted him to his substantive post of Sub-Treasury Officer with retrospective effect from June 7, 1957. The appeal of the appellant to the President having been rejected, he moved a petition in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for a writ quashing the orders dated May 12, 1954 and November 7, 1960. The appellant contended that an order of reversion cannot be made to have retrospective operation.

(3.) The petition insofar as it relates to the first order was belated. Again there is no ground for holding that retrospective operation was in fact given to that order of reversion. By the order dated May 12, 1954 the appellant was reverted to the post of Sub-Treasury Officer, but the order did not state the date from which the order was to be effective. In summarising the averments made in the petition, the Judicial Commissioner stated that the petitioner had alleged that the order dated May 12, 1954, was to have effect from May 6, 1954. A copy of that petition is not filed in this Court and we are unable to accept, especially having regard to the terms of the order, that any retrospective operation was sought to be given. In any event the Judicial Commissioner was justified in refusing to entertain any contention as to the validity of the order of reversion made nearly seven years before the date on which the petition was filed.