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

2022 Supreme(Tri) 228

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Dipti Rani Das - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 946 of 2021
Decided On : 19-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Koomar Chakraborty, Advocate, K. De, Advocate

Entitlement to career progression benefits was confirmed based on the appointment date, requiring payment of dues as per admission by the respondents.

Headnote:(A) Service Laws - Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) - The petitioner entitled to ACP-1 and MACP-2 on specific dates based on appointment date of 27.08.2002 - Respondents admitted entitlement in their counter-affidavit. (Paras 2, 3)

(B) Writ Petition - Court directed payment of dues within a stipulated timeframe. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed entitlement to career progression benefits, which the respondents confirmed in their affidavit.

Findings of Court:
Court directed the respondents to pay ACP-1 and MACP-2 with arrears within three months.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the ACP and MACP benefits as claimed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the petitioner's entitlement based on the respondents' admissions, ordering the appropriate remuneration within a specified period.

Result: Writ petition allowed and disposed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner entitled to acp-1 and macp-2 based on appointment date. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents admit entitlement to acp-1 and macp-2. (Para 3)
3. court directs payment of dues. (Para 4)
4. writ petition allowed and disposed. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was entitled to get ACP-1 and MACP-2 on 27.08.2012 and 27.08.2019 respectively, as her date of appointment in service was 27.08.2002.

3. On going through the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is found that the respondents at para 15 have stated thus:-

'15. That, with regard to para 2.21 of the Writ Petition, I say that, according to the ROP in force at that time, the Petitioner was also entitled to get ACP 1 and MACP 2 on 27.08.2012 and 27.08.2019 respectively, as her date of appointment was 27.08.2002.'

4. In view of this admission, I direct the respondents to pay the ACP-1 and MACP-2 in favour of the petitioners with all arrears she is entitled to within a period of 3(three) months from today after completing all formalities in her service book.

5. With the above directions, the instant writ petition stands allowed and thus, disposed.

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