STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. BADAL DEB BARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The quest in the present exercise in appeal is to determine the correct principles that would govern the entitlement of a government employee to arrear salary in a situation when the employer himself, in recognition of the wrongful denial of promotion, has granted retrospective promotion to such employee.

(2.) The above question arises in the following facts : - The respondents in both the appeals were serving as assistant teachers in different High Schools of the State. By an order dated 12.10.1992, persons who were juniors to the respondents-petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress and the said batch of promotees were again promoted to the post of Headmaster/ Headmistress by a subsequent order dated 25.11.1995. Claiming to be seniors and eligible, the respondents-petitioners filed representations before the Government and by an order dated 19.02.1996, the respondents-petitioners along with others were retrospectively promoted to the posts of Assistant Headmaster/Headmistress with effect from 05.11.1992, i.e., the date from which the promotion of the juniors were made effective. Furthermore, by the same order dated 19.02.1996, the respondents-petitioners were also promoted to the post of Headmaster/ Headmistress with effect from 29.11.1995. The order dated 19.02.1996 contemplated grant of arrear salary to the respondents-petitioners on account of their belated promotions and for other consequential benefits as if the respondents-petitioners were holding the promoted posts with effect from such date/dates that their juniors were promoted. However, by a subsequent notification dated 24.07.1996, the benefit of arrear pay given to the respondents-petitioners in the post of Headmaster/ Headmistress with effect from 05.11.1992 and in the posts of Headmaster/Headmistress with effect from 29.11.1995 was sought to be taken away and the promotions made with effect from the said dates were attempted to be made notional. Aggrieved, the two writ petitions, out of which the present appeals have arisen, were filed.

(3.) The learned Single Judge after an elaborate consideration of the cases of the respective parties by the judgment and order dated 11.08.1998 took the view that the retrospective promotion of the respondents should carry the benefit of arrear salary. In this regard the learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the reason(s) for denying promotion to the respondents-petitioners i.e., that they did not possess the B.Ed, degree, was non-existent inasmuch as such qualification was acquired by the respondents-petitioners on the relevant date. The denial of promotion was, therefore, held to be unjustified. The learned Single Judge further held that though the respondents-petitioners did not inform the authority about the degree obtained by them, yet the authority was equally to be blamed for failing to notice that said fact inasmuch as the respondents-petitioners had acquired their degrees while in service. On the aforesaid basis and taking the view that a retrospective promotion normally entails grant of arrear salary for the period for which the promotion was withheld, the learned Single Judge concluded the writ petitions by holding that the respondents-petitioners would be entitled to arrear salary for such period. Accordingly the notification dated 24.07.1996 was interfered with. Aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeals.