DIPANKAR MAJUMDER Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, the original petitioner, is aggrieved to a limited extent by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.05.2019 in WP(C) No.674 of 2019 which he had filed for his retrospective promotion with all consequential benefits from the post of LDC to UDC. Petitioner claims such promotion on reserved vacancy for Scheduled Caste to which he belongs. Previously he had filed WP(C) No.713 of 2018 which was disposed of requesting the administration to consider the representation of the petitioner. Thereupon the General Administration Department while disposing of the representation observed that the High Court had only directed to consider the petition and decide by a speaking order. It cannot be presumed that promotion is to be granted. Thus when the petitioner's grievances were not resolved by the administration, he filed fresh petition. This petition came to be disposed of by impugned judgment dated 31.05.2019. The learned Single Judge noted that the DPC had also recommended retrospective promotion of the petitioner-appellant in view of the fact that his juniors were promoted and a vacancy for SC category candidate was available. The learned Single Judge made some observations about this retrospective promotion, nevertheless provided that the petitioner would get promotion from the date when his juniors were appointed but the financial benefits would be released only from 27.05.2019, i.e. the date of filing of the petition.

(2.) The grievance of the appellant voiced through his advocate Mr. Somik Deb is twofold. Firstly, counsel contended that the DPC had while disposing of the petitioner's representation pursuant to the previous order of the High Court clearly recorded that in the DPC which was conducted in the year 2014, there was a vacancy for SC category candidate and it was an oversight not to consider the petitioner for promotion to such vacancy. The DPC, therefore, recommended retrospective promotion of the petitioner. The observation of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment may amount to limiting the retrospective effect of the promotion. The second limb of the petitioner's grievance is the limited financial benefits granted pursuant to the promotion that may be allowed to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that even the benefit of the judgment of the learned Single Judge has not been granted to the petitioner though the Government has not challenged the judgment of the Single Judge.

(3.) We propose to put an end to this litigation, firstly by clarifying the implication of the order of the learned Single Judge with respect to petitioner's retrospective promotion and thereafter dealing with his expectation of arrears of salary.