Allowed

Md. Abdul Malib v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC17 Aug 2017WP(C)/149/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to promote the petitioner, who was senior to several private respondents. The court found the petitioner's qualification genuine after verification was completed and removed lingering obstacles to execution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be promoted from the date his juniors were appointed; pay and allowances to be determined notionally; formal promotion order to be issued within a month of stay vacatur.

Md. Abdul Malib Vs the State of Tripura and Ors. — Service and Employment | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 149 of 2017

¶4

Md. Abdul Matlib ,

¶5

son of late Abdul Rahman, resident of Gournagar, P.S. Kailasahar, District- Unakoti, Tripura

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Versus –

¶8

The State of Tripura , represented by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Panchayat, Government of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, West Tripura

¶9

The Director of Panchayat , Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura

¶10

Sri Sadhan Das , son of unknown

¶11

Sri Gautam Das , son of unknown

¶12

Sri Arun Kumar Roy , son of unknown

¶13

Sri Dalalu Kumar Dham , son of unknown

¶14

Smt. Sabitri Dey , wife of unknown

¶15

Sri Gautam Pal , son of unknown

¶16

Sri Rajesh Saha , son of unknown

¶17

Sri Sankar Gope , son of unknown

¶18

[Notice upon the respondents no. 3 to 10 may be served Through the Director, Department of Panchayat, Government of Tripura, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Dist. West Tripura]

¶19

… Respondents

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶22

For the petitioners : Mr. A. Bhowmik, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate Date of hearing & delivery of Judgment and Order : 17.08.2017 Whether fit for reporting : NO

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 149 of 2017

¶24

¶25

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶26

Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

petitioner as well as Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶28

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who is working as the Group ‘D’ employee has challenged the action of the respondents No. 1 and 2 whereby the respondents No. 3 to 10 have been promoted to the post of Panchayat Secretary under the Directorate of Panchayat, Government of Tripura. Admittedly the petitioner is senior to those private respondents, but he has been denied the promotion arbitrarily. In this context, the promotion order dated 06.09.2017 (Annexure P-3 to the writ petition) has been challenged.

¶29

3. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the private respondents were also working as Group ‘D’ employee and they have been promoted to the post of Panchayat Secretary in consideration of their service, they have rendered. The petitioner was senior in the grade of the Group ‘D’ to the private respondents, but his case was not considered despite the petitioner does fulfill all the requisite qualification and qualifying service for getting such promotion. In this regard, there is no dispute.

¶30

4. Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the cases of a few Group ‘D’ employees including that of the petitioner was deferred as the

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 149 of 2017

¶32

¶33

verification of the mark sheet was not complete at the time of issuance of the order of promotion.

¶34

5. From the communication dated 09.03.2017 (Annexure R-5 to the counter affidavit) it appears that a letter was written to the Director, DDE-Madurai Kamaraj University for verification of the mark sheet of the petitioner and others. From the communication dated 09.03.2017, it further appears that the petitioner and other 5 Group ‘D’ employees had been recommended by the Departmental Promotional Committee (for short the DPC) for promotion to the post of Panchayat Secretary subject to verification of genuineness of mark sheet. Those mark sheets were sent for verification to the said DDE-Madurai Kamaraj University. From the communication dated 30.03.2017 (Annexure R-6 to the counter affidavit) it clearly transpires that the said University namely Madurai Kamaraj University has clearly stated that the mark sheet of the petitioner was from that University and the certificates are all genuine.

¶35

6. Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel has submitted that in view of the memorandum dated 01.04.2017 (Annexure R-7 to the counter affidavit) issued by the Additional Secretary, Government of Tripura, GA (P&T) Department, the promotion could not be given, even after receipt of the report from the University for the stay order passed by the Apex Court, no promotion could be given.

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 149 of 2017

¶37

¶38

7. Be that as it may, the substantive controversy has been resolved as the impediment that was apparently shown for withholding promotion of the petitioner has been removed as the verification of the mark sheet was complete and the mark sheet of the petitioner was found genuine. Hence, the respondents are directed to promote the petitioner from the date when his juniors i.e. the private respondents were appointed on promotion by the order dated 06.01.2017 (Annexure P-3 to the writ petition). Till the date of assuming the promotion post, the pay and allowances of the petitioner shall be determined notionally, but his pay shall be released from the date of joining. Since there is an apparent impediment in executing the promotion order, the respondents are further directed that when the stay order as passed by the Apex Court is vacated and/or the pending case, in which the said stay order has been passed, is finally decided, the petitioner shall be promoted by issuing a formal order of promotion in terms of this order within a month therefrom,.

¶39

8. Having observed thus, the writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

A copy of this order be furnished to Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel for onward transmission.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Saikat

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 149 of 2017

Md. Abdul Malib v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Abdul Malib v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallika Datta Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Partha Sarathi Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Ruma Gan Bardhan Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Anil Ch. Som Vs Udaipur Nagar Panchayet and 2 Ors.

Anantahari Jamatia Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Anil Ch. Som Vs Udaipur Nagar Panchayet and 2 Ors.