SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Tri) 198

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Akil Kureshi, CJ.
Shyamal Chakraborty - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 480/2021
Decided On : 02-09-2021

Advocates appeared:
Ms. R Purkayastha, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. P K Dhar, Sr. Govt. Advocate, Mr. Anujit Dey, Advocate, for the Respondent

An employee's entitlement to benefits should not be negated by a later departmental inquiry, emphasizing the importance of timely consideration of rights.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Right to Service - The petitioner was denied benefits of 3rd Assured Carrier Progression (ACP) due to a pending departmental charge sheet despite entitlement since 2015. The court ruled that a delayed departmental proceeding cannot negate an accrued right. (Paras 2 and 4)

(B) Quashing of Impugned Communication - The court quashed the communication denying ACP due to the ongoing inquiry, mandating the department to reconsider the case on merits without regard to the inquiry status. (Paras 3 and 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a pharmacist, was entitled to the 3rd ACP in 2015, but the benefit was withheld due to a charge sheet issued in December 2019. The department's communication indicated that the ACP would not be initiated until the inquiry was resolved, irrelevant to the actual entitlement date.

Findings of Court:
The court agreed with the petitioner that denial of the ACP benefit due to a charge sheet issued after the entitlement arose was unjust and based on inaccurate reasoning from the department.

Issues: The core issue was whether a pending departmental inquiry could justifiably prevent the consideration of a long-accrued entitlement to 3rd ACP.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an employee's entitlement to benefits should not be affected retroactively by actions taken years later regarding departmental inquiries, emphasizing the need for timely consideration.

Result: Impugned communication quashed; the case for 3rd ACP to be reconsidered on merits within four months.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner’s grievance is that the benefit of 3rd Assured Carrier Progression (ACP), which was due to him in the year 2015, has not been granted on the ground that a departmental charge sheet is pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to a communication, dated 22nd June 2021, as at Annexure-F to the petition in which this aspect has been highlighted by the departmental authority. This communication reads as under :

“Sir,

With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to return back here with the proposal of 3rd ACP of Sri Shyamal Chakraborty, Pharmacist of Udaipur District Jail along with his service book, as a Departmental proceeding vide case No.92/INQ/ACDJ/JAIL/2020 has been pending against him. So, at present his 3rd ACP may not be initiated till disposal of his D.P. case.

This is for your kind information please.”

Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the departmental charge sheet was issued to the petitioner only on 26th December 2019 whereas his right to receive the benefit of 3rd ACP arose in the year 2015.

I am in agreement with the contention of counsel for the petitioner. For an event which took place 4 years after the petitioner’s right for being considered for 3rd ACP arose, cannot be the ground to deny such benefit, if otherwise as per departmental policies he was entitled to receive the same. Learned counsel for the State stated to his instructions that the other employee of the jail staff also have not been granted the said 3rd ACP in view of scale upgradations received by them in the past. This is not what the department has conveyed to the petitioner. What has been communicated at Annexure-F is that the petitioner’s case cannot be considered because he is facing a departmental inquiry.

Under the circumstances, the impugned communication dated 22nd June 2021 is quashed. The case of the petitioner for grant of 3rd ACP will be considered from due date on merits ignoring the pending departmental inquiry. After so considering the case of the petitioner, if the department is of the opinion that for some other reason the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of 3rd ACP, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner along with brief reasons. The exercise shall be completed within a period of 4(four) months from today.

Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top