ARDHENDU BIKASH CHAKRABOARTY Vs. STATE OF TRIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's grievance in this case is that he has been denied the benefit that was given to his equal the respondent No.3.

(2.) Heard Mr. K.N.Bhattarcherjee, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Advocate General for the respondents.

(3.) Botth the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 were working as LDC under the Live Stock Cencus Operation, Tripura. The petitioner was appointed on 1.4.1961. There appointments were for fixed period which were extended from time to time continuously till 31.8.61. Thereafter the petitioner was taken back to the Animal Husbandry Department with effect from 14.12.1961 and the repondent No.3 was also taken back in the same department with effect from 15.9.1961, so there was a break of service of 104 days in respect of the petitioner and 14 days in respect of the respondent No. 3. Subsequently, respondent No.3 approached the High Court and as per direction of the High Court in Civil Rule No. 76 of 1981 (Annexure- 6) the break of service benefits as accorded by the said order. The petitioner also approached the government by making representations (Annexures - 4, 5, & 10) and subsequently the government after Cabinet decision passed the order dated 20.5.1992 (Annexure-11) thereby condoning the break in service of the petitioner and according service benefits, namely, seniority, leave, pension, promotion etc. though it was ordered that his pay was to be fixed notionally and no arrear of pay might be given to him. The aforesaid order is extracted below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_226_GAULT1_1998Html1.htm</FRM>