JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 6. None appears on call for the respondent nos.1 and 7.

2. The petitioner is currently serving as a Supply Officer (re-designated as Planning Officer w.e.f. 13.01.2016) with the Tea Board (respondent no.2) and is aspiring for promotion to the post of ‘Assistant Secretary’ of the Tea Board for which ‘Supply Officer’ is one of the feeder cadre. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the respondent no.7, who is holding the substantive post of Law Officer was given additional responsibility of the job of Assistant Secretary on 06.04.2017 and such ad hoc arrangement is continuing since then.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the cadre of Supply Officer/ Joint Controller of licensing/ Welfare Liaison Officer is the Feeder Cadre to the post of Assistant Secretary, as per the schedule of the Tea Board (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Officers appointed by the Government) Rules, 1971. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Security Officer (re-designated as Estate Officer w.e.f. 13.01.2016). On the strength of recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC for short) held on 07.06.2011, one P.C. Boro was promoted to the post of Supply Officer w.e.f. 14.06.2011 against which the aggrieved petitioner had moved the Calcutta High Court. The Calcutta High Court vide order dated 19.01.2015 in APO No.63/2014 in WP No.658/2011, disposed of the said appeal with the following observations:

“We have considered the rival contentions. It is true, unless the Central Government approves the by-laws, it cannot be put into operation. The learned Judge directed the Central Government to do so. We find no scope of interference.

On the question of appellant’s right to claim promotion, we clarify, an employee is always entitled to better his service condition strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules and promotion is one of the avenues available to him. If the Tea Board has made departure in the past, they may also consider the appellant at par with those employees including one Mr. Roychowdhury. However, they would be free to take a decision of their own.

With these modifications, the appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs.

At this juncture, Mr. Chowdhury in his usual fairness, on instruction, assures this Court, in case such an application is made by the appellant, the authority definitely will consider the same within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said application.”

4. Consequently, a review DPC was constituted by respondent no.6 for reviewing the recommendation of the earlier DPC held on 07.06.2011 in the matter of filling up the post of Supply Officer. The review DPC in its meeting held on 20.05.2016, recommended the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Supply Officer w.e.f. 20.05.2016. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Planning Officer (formerly Supply Officer) w.e.f. 20.05.2016. In course of time, 09.02.2017, the fixation of pay of the petitioner in the promoted post was notified. By the impugned office memorandum dated 06.04.2017 (Annexure-9) the respondent no.7 was allowed to look after the duties and responsibilities of the post of Assistant Secretary on ad hoc basis, till such time the said post is filled up on regular basis or until further orders, whichever is earlier and consequential orders were also passed to delegate financial and administrative powers of Assistant Secretary to the respondent no.7.

5. Thereafter, by an order dated 13.11.2017, the post of Planning Officer in which the petitioner was placed was transferred from the Head Office of respondent no.2 at Calcutta and was attached to the North-east Zonal Office of respondent no.2 at Guwahati. Consequently, by an order dated 20.11.20