Back
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Swapan Kumar Mazumder - Petitioner
Versus
State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
W.P(C) NO.13 OF 2009
Decided On : 24.04.2015
Promotion - Divisional Fire Officer - [Service Rules, DPC Guidelines] - The court considered the petitioner's eligibility for promotion to the post of Divisional Fire Officer (DFO) and the violation of DPC guidelines by the official respondents. The petitioner was found to be eligible for promotion to the DFO post, and the court directed the respondents to constitute a special DPC to consider the petitioner's case for promotion with retrospective effect.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought promotion to the post of Divisional Fire Officer (DFO) from the year 2001, claiming bias and deprivation of promotion despite being eligible. The respondents contended that no one was promoted to the DFO post from 2001 to 2008, and the post was lapsed and recreated in 2008.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the DFO post from 2001 and that the official respondents violated DPC guidelines by not convening a DPC meeting for promotion during the petitioner's service and retirement period. The court directed the respondents to constitute a special DPC to consider the petitioner's case for promotion with retrospective effect.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a vacant post of DFO for promotion in the year 2001 and whether the petitioner was eligible for promotion at that point of time? 2. Whether the promotion to a superior post can be considered after retirement of the person who was entitled to be promoted before retirement in the existing vacant post?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the DFO post from 2001 and that the official respondents violated DPC guidelines by not convening a DPC meeting for promotion during the petitioner's service and retirement period. The court directed the respondents to constitute a special DPC to consider the petitioner's case for promotion with retrospective effect.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondents to constitute a special DPC within 3 months to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the DFO post with retrospective effect, and to provide appropriate notional promotion and consequential service benefits to the petitioner.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prayed for directing the official respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Divisional Fire Officer w.e.f. 2nd May, 2001.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. S. C. Das for the petitioner and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Respondent No.5 has chosen to remain absent.
3. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed in the post of Fireman on 19.04.1973 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) under the Directorate of Fire Service, Govt. of Tripura. As per the Service Rules, the promotional channels were from the post of Fireman to the post of Sub-Officer and then from the post of Sub-Officer to the post of Station Officer and thereafter from the post of Station Officer to Divisional Fire Officer and so on. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub-Officer on 30.08.1977 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and thereafter was promoted to the post of Station Officer on 22.09.1995 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The Director of Fire Service published a seniority list of the Fireman on 9th December, 1974 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and in that seniority list the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl. No.69 and the respondent No.5 was shown at Sl. No.67 and thereby the respondent No.5 was placed senior to the petitioner. The seniority position of respondent No.5 as per seniority list dated 9th December 1974 was challenged by one Milan Kanti Paul and others by filing a Civil Suit No. T.S. 26 of 1977 and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The judgment passed in the Title Suit was carried to first appeal as well as to second appeal vide RSA No.10 of 1984 and by judgment dated 24.06.1996 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) the Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court upheld the judgment passed by the trial Court. As per the said judgment, a fresh seniority list of Firemen was prepared on 16.11.1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and in that seniority list, the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl. No.69 and the name of respondent No.5 was shown at Sl. No.72 which means the respondent No.5 was junior to the petitioner in the post of Fireman from the date of their appointment as a Fireman.
3.1 The petitioner claimed his promotion to the post of Sub-Officer and Station Officer with retrospective effect from the date his junior respondent No.5 was promoted and since the relief was not granted by the official respondents, he filed Civil Rule No.510 of 1995 before the Agartala Bench of the then Gauhati High Court and the High Court by judgment dated 01.02.2005 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to constitute a DPC to consider afresh whether the petitioner was fit for promotion to the Grade of Sub-Officer w.e.f. the date when the respondent No.5 was promoted and if so found and promoted, his seniority in the Grade of Sub-Officer as well as Station Officer should be refixed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law applicable to the Officers of both the Grades. Pursuant to that judgment of the High Court, the respondent No.4 by order dated 21.03.2006 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and order dated 05.01.2006 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) promoted the petitioner showing him as senior in the post of Sub-Officer and Station Officer and a fresh seniority list dated 22.01.2006 of Station Officer was published (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) wherein the petitioner was shown as senior to respondent No.5.
3.2 It is also an admitted position that a post of Divisional Fire Officer was created at Ambassa, Dhalai District on 02.05.2001 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) but the post was not filled up and it was ultimately lapsed. According to the respondents (para 13 of the counter affidavit) the post of Divisional Fire Officer, Ambassa, Dhalai was again created by departmental notification dated 02.09.2008 which was create
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
