BHANU LODH Vs. TRIPURA JUTE MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prayed for granting following reliefs:

(2.) PETITIONER inter alia contended that in the year 1985, pursuant to an advertisement made by respondent No. 1(TJML) for the post of Commercial Officer, the petitioner applied as a candidate and after interview in due process he was selected for the post in the pay scale of Rs.1,400 -2,350/ - but thereafter he was appointed as a Trainee Officer on probation for a period of six months on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/ -(rupees five hundred) and subsequently was appointed as Officer on Special Duty(OSD) attached to the Commercial Section in a lower scale of pay. Under compulsion he joined to the post since he resigned from his earlier service. He made protest and submitted representation for his appointment to the post for which the advertisement was made and he was selected. Subsequently, the respondents -TJML appointed him to the post of Commercial Officer, Gr -II w.e.f. 17.09.1987 in a lower pay scale of Rs.800 -1530/ -. He was not placed to the post of Commercial Officer in the pay scale of Rs.1400 -2350/ -. He made numerous representations for his appointment to the post of Commercial Officer and for other service benefits to which the respondents did not make any positive response and therefore, ultimately he approached the then Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench by filing writ petition being WP(C) No. 454 of 2005 which was allowed by judgment dated 18.04.2007 with following directions:

(3.) RESPONDENTS contended that the claim of the petitioner for promotion does not lie since his promotion was never denied by promoting his juniors and that his promotion would be considered as and when the superior post would be filled up. It is also contended by the respondents that no order was issued asking him to work in the post of Commercial Manager and that the certificate issued in his favour was not by an authorized person. It is also contended that the schemes of time bound promotion, career advancement scheme or assured career progression scheme, etc. have not been introduced by the respondent No. 1 and such schemes under the ROP of the employees of the State Government have not been introduced/adopted by the respondent No. 1 and so the petitioner cannot claim the facilities available under the ROP Rules of the employees of the State Government. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner is unfounded and is not maintainable.