BIPLAB DEBGUPTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA; SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA; CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT; ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF; ALOKE DASGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, challenged the notification No.F.6(70)-PWD(E)/91(S) dated 31.10.2005 in respect of promotion of respondent Nos. 6 and 8 to the post of Assistant Engineer(Mechanical) and further prayed for directing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to give promotion to the petitioner from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 31.10.2005.

(2.) Heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. B. Das for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. B. Dutta for the Staterespondents. No representation on behalf of private respondent Nos. 5 to 9.

(3.) It is inter alia, contended by the petitioner that being a diploma holder engineer in Mechanical branch, he entered into service under the Public Works Department (for short, PWD) of Govt. of Tripura on 22.05.1980 as an Overseer (re-designated as Jr. Engineer) and since his entry into service, he has been working in the same post without any promotion though he has been discharging his duties to the best of his abilities and to the satisfaction of his authorities. He was supposed to get at least two promotions in his service career but he did not get any promotion during his 26 years service and even he was not allowed the higher scale of pay after 10 years and thereafter 8 years of service as per Tripura State Civil Services Revision of Pay Rules,1988 and subsequent Revision of Pay Rules,1999. By impugned notification dated 31.10.2005 (Annexrue-A to the writ petition) respondent Nos. 5 to 9 were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and those respondents are also diploma holder Engineer (Mechanical) and out of them respondent No.8 has been wrongly given promotion though he was not entitled to get the promotion. In the seniority list dated 06.11.2004 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) the name of the petitioner appeared in Sl.No.4 whereas the name of respondent No.8 appeared in Sl.No.10 but the official respondents promoted respondent No.8 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) depriving the due promotion to the petitioner. The order dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) is therefore, most illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and therefore, liable to be interfered in respect of promotion of respondent Nos. 6 and 8 are concerned. The petitioner submitted representation on 07.11.2005 but received no response. Again he submitted reminder on 20.12.2005 but still received no response and hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking redress.