SUBHAS ROY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for issuing a writ of certiorari cancelling the final seniority list bearing No. F. 1 (203)-ICAT/ 86/estt/5815-33 dated 27.7.1990 and also for directing the fresh seniority list to be prepared placing the petitioner at serial No. 21 instead of his present position at serial No. 38 in the post of Forum Supervisor, subsequently to the redesignated post of Information and Cultural Officer under the Directorate of ICAT, Govt. of Tripura.

(2.) The petitioner's case, in short, is that while the petitioner was serving on being promoted in the post of Information Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 1700-3980/-, he along with as many as twenty five other incumbents have: been entertained against the redesignated post conformation & Cultural Officer w.e.f. 10.1,2.1987 vide Memo No. F.6(1)-ICAT/ 87/Estt/7514-44 dated 6.9.1990. Prior to amalgamation the posts of Forum Supervisor, Feature Writer, Assistant Information Officer wens the feeder posts of Chief Organiser and the post of Junior Information Officer formed a separate cadre, but subsequently the post of Jlunior Information Officer and Forum Supervisor had been amalgamated and the upgraded post after amalgamation has been redesignated as Information Officer in the pay scale of Rs.560-1300/-. According to the petitioner, the private respondent Nos. 4 to 20 having held the posts of Junior Information Officer prior to amalgamation were juniors to the petitioner in service and as such after amalgamation under the redesignated post of Information Officer, the petitioner should have been shown senior to the erstwhile Junior Information Officers.

(3.) To controvert the same, the learned senior Govt. Advocate Mr. U.B. Saha. assisted by Mr. B.R. Das Roy, learned counsel for the State respondents having referred paragraph 19(ii) of the counter- affidavit submits that the incumbents holding the erstwhile posts of Forum Supervisor and the incumbents holding the posts of Junior Information Officer had never discharged identical works with similar responsibility though their pay scales were identical and as such after amalgamation in the upgraded post of Information Officer, the erstwhile Junior Information Officers were preferentially treated having regard to their wider area of works with higher responsibility compared to the incumbent holding the erstwhile posts of Forum Supervisor, in fixing the seniority and as such the petitioner should not have any grievance relating to fixation of his seniority.