TEA BOARD Vs. SANKAR NARAYAN DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of an order allowing the writ application filed by the respondent No. 1 By that order, which is dated 29th July 1999, the learned single Judge directed the Chairman, Tea Board (the appellant No. 2) to fix the seniority of the respondent No. 1 above Ajit Rakshit and the other private respondents and to award consequential benefits.

(2.) In the writ application which was filed on 5th January 1998 the respondent No. 1 claimed that he had joined the services of the appellant No. 1 on 15th November 1967. The respondent No. 1 was thereafter promoted from time to time and was ultimately promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant on 16th April 1987. These facts are not disputed by the appellants. It is also not in dispute that each of the private respondents were junior to the respondent No. 1 and that Ajit Rakshit, who was the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition, was immediately junior to the respondent No. 1

(3.) The trouble appears to have started when the respondent No. 1 was selected for serving in the post of India based Assistant Accountant designated as Accountant at the Dubai Office of the appellant No. 1 on 5th August 1991. The respondent No. 1 joined duty at Dubai where he was till May 1995. While he was posted in Dubai, Ajit Rakshit and the other private respondents were granted promotion to the post of Accountant. Each of the promotion orders issued mentioned that the respondents No. 1 and another Asistant Accountant posted at New York (who was also senior to the private respondents in the cadre of Assistant Accountant), whould get seniority pay protection over the promotee in the cadre of accountant when the promotion would be offered and accepted by them. However, when the respondent No. 1 returned to Calcutta on 19th May 1999, he was asked to join duty as Assistant Accountant and to work under a Junior. The respondent No. 1 protested and ultimately on 26th July 1995 he was promoted to the post of Officiating Accountant from the date he assumed charge. But the respondent No. 1's name was not included in the seniority list of Accountant and continued to be shown even thereafter in the substantive post of Assistant Accountant.