MANJU SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. B. Bhattacharji for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the State respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk(LDC) under the Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department on 26.04.1974. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her and she was censored in the disciplinary proceeding. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding a DPC was held and some other similarly situated LDCs were promoted by an order dated 26.09.1987 and her case was kept pending due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. Ultimately, she was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk(UDC) on 10.10.1990 with prospective effect. She made representation for giving her promotion with retrospective effect from the date of the promotion given to other similarly situated LDCs, i.e. w.e.f. the year 1987 but such benefit was not given to her. She filed WP(C) No.211 of 1999 in the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench but the writ petition was withdrawn on 22.03.1999. In the order allowing withdrawal of the writ petition certain observations were made to reconsider her case in respect of the benefits she claimed. The order so passed by the High Court reads as follows:

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel, Mr. Bhowmik appearing for the petitioner has submitted that censor cannot be termed as a major punishment and one cannot be debarred from usual promotion because of a punishment of censor. It is an admitted fact that she was not given promotion in the year 1987 only for the reason that a disciplinary proceeding was pending against her. So, when the disciplinary proceeding ended with the punishment of censor and subsequently the authority taken up her case, she would have been given promotion with retrospective effect from the year 1987. It is, however, contended by Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel that there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in taking up the issue but for that reason itself she should not be deprived of her legitimate benefit which she was otherwise entitled to get.