BIRENDRA DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA; DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES; PREMSASI JAMATIA; BRAJENDRA CHANDRA DEBBARMA; SUBODH RANJAN DAS; HARIDAS DEBBARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the office order No.F.2(86)-Fish(Estt)/2004-05/P dated 20.12.2007, Annexure-6 to the writ petition whereby the respondent No.3 Shri Premsasi Jamatia, the respondent No.4 Shri Brajendra Debbarma and the respondent No.6 Shri Haridas Debbarma were promoted to the post of Fishery Inspector(Group-C, Non-Gazetted) in the scale of pay Rs.5,000-10,300/- on recommendation of the DPC, with immediate effect.

(2.) Though in the writ petition the petitioner has asserted in the para-8 of the writ petition that "in utter disregard of his seniority, the state respondents promoted the respondent No. 3 to 6 to the post of fishery inspector by an officer order dated 20th December, 2007 superseding the petitioner", the name of the respondent No.5 Shri Subodh Ranjan Das does not appear in the office order dated 20.12.2007, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. However, from the tentative seniority list of the Fishery Inspector borne in the scale of pay of Rs. 5310/--24,000/-, in the pay band, published by the memorandum No.F.2(38)-FISH(ESTT)/02-03 dated 23.08.2014, it surfaces that the respondent No.5, Shri Subodh Ranjan Das was appointed in the post of the Fishery Inspector on 30.04.2011.

(3.) There is no dispute that the respondents No. 3 to 6 were all junior to the petitioner in the grade of Fishery Assistants. Even the petitioner has produced with the writ petition the office order No.F.2(663)-FISH(ESTT)/94-95 dated 25.04.1997, Annexure-4 to the writ petition whereby the Fishery Assistants including the petitioner were confirmed in the said post with effect from 01.01.1997. It would be apparent from the said list, which according to the petitioner, has been prepared in order of seniority, that the name of the petitioner figured at serial No. 186 whereas the name of the respondents No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 appeared at serial No. 187, 188, 189 and 190 respectively. That apart, in the para-7 of the writ petition the petitioner has further asserted that the respondents No.3 to 6 were junior to the petitioner in the grade of Fishery Assistants. In reply to that paragraph, the respondents No. 1 and 2 in their counter-affidavit have admitted that respondents No. 3 to 6 were junior to the petitioner in the grade of Fishery Assistants.