The State Of Tripura And ORS v. Tribal Engineer Society Tripura And ORS
!"
# (ThroughtheSecretary, PublicWorksDepartment, GovernmentofTripura), Agartala. $
%# GeneralAdministration(P&T)Department, GovernmentofTripura, Agartala. & $
%# ScheduledTribesWelfareDepartment, GovernmentofTripura,Agartala. $
%# '
'$(!
)'
GovernmentofTripura,Agartala. **!!++ '
, -. ,",- / +'0 ' ,1 $ %# !"
HeadOffice%RamkrishnaNok C/o.Er.ManoranjanDebbarma, NearStateTribalCulturalResearchInstituteandMuseum, Suparibagan,Krishnanagar, P.S.WestAgartala. District%WestTripura, (AregisteredSocietyhavingitsregistration No.4141andrepresentedbyitsSecretary). + 2 '
2) S/oSriJatindraChakma. & 3 ' '4 '(// ) S/oSriBahadurDebbarma.
4'5 (// ) S/olateRajMohanDebbarma. 6 7 ,8 (// ) S/oLateJagatMohanDebbarma.
"5 '(// ) S/oSriSushilDebbarma.
)/"(// ) S/oSriMukundaDebbarma. 9 ) '5 (// ) W/oShriPurenduDebbarma. : 4 (// ) S/oSriGirindraDebbarma.
' 2) S/oLateSureshChakma.
) ' 2;
)
S/oShriNilkantaJamatia. " 4% <") (// ) S/oLateSasimohanDebbarma. & ;
% '
(// ) S/oShriJotishChandraDebbarma.
'5 (// ) S/oShriSunilDebbarma. 6 3
+;
)
S/oShriJagatGuruJamatia. '4 '(// ) S/oLateKanojDebbarma. ) + 2) S/oLateKrishnaBandhuChakma. 9 ) < '
(// ) S/oLateB.K.Debbarma. : ;
'5 ;
)
S/oLateJabaJamatia. ;0, '5 ;
)
S/oLateGovindaSundarJamatia. "2") + 2) S/oShriSushilKumarChakma. ,8 ' <") (// ) S/oBimalChandraDebbarma.
0
& )"+% ;
)
S/oShriBhubanKumarJamatia.
) +(// ) S/oLateSubalChandraDebbarma. 6
,
)7 ,"7
(// ) S/oLateB.K.Debbarma. 7
'5 ;
)
S/oLateDhanimanikJamaita.
, + +
S/oShriBiswahariNoatia. 9 , '# S/oLateBipinChiran. : ,(// ) S/oShriNakulDebbarma. & "+
;
)
S/oShriPrabirKumarJamatia. All are C/o Tribal Engineers' Society, Tripura,HeadOffice-RamkrishnaNok C/o. Er. Manoranjan Debbarma, Near StateTribalCulturalResearchInstitute and Museum, Suparibagan, Krishnanagar,P.S.WestAgartala,Dist. WestTripura. & !"
"/+ $ = $)) ,, ' ThroughitsSecretary,Agartala. * ,!'5'
, 7
17 ;
3 ( <
173 ;
Fortheappellants :Mr.B.C.Das,AdvocateGeneral Mr.B.Banerji,Advocate FortherespondentsNo.1to30:Mr.S.M.Chakraborty,Sr.Advocate Ms.B.Das,Advocate FortherespondentNo.31 :Mr.P.Dutta,Advocate Dateofhearinganddelivery:96 ofjudgmentandorder Whetheritisfitforreporting: >, √
0&
;
(3? ( @ A
This writ appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 31.03.2014 delivered by a learned Single Judge of thisCourtinW.P.(C)No.301of2006. BC The undisputed facts are that vide order dated 9th November, 1992 a large number of Junior Engineers, both degree holders and diploma holders, working in the Public Works Department, were promoted on officiating basis as Assistant Engineersonad%hocbasisforaperiodnotexceeding6(six)months. No regular promotions were made and the ad%hoc promotions continued.Finally,anorderwaspassedon14thJuly,2006,whereby as many as 238 persons were promoted as Assistant Engineers on regular basis. However these promotions were made effective from thedateoftheorderi.e.
14thJuly,2006.Though238personshad beenpromotedbythisorder,only29personsofthesaidpromotees formedasociety,knownastheTribalEngineers'Society,Tripuraand this society along with these 29 (twenty nine) individuals filed the writpetitionprayingthattheirpromotionshouldbeeffectedfrom9th November, 1992 when they were initially promoted. The learned SingleJudgeheldthatthoughthead%hocservicedoesnotconferany rightintheeyesoflaw,theoriginalpetitionerswereentitledtothis benefit since one other person namely, Kajal Banik (Engineer) was givenbenefitofad%hocservice.
0
B&C In our opinion, this dispute is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the ( $ $ "
+ ,,D '0 ' '0 $ ,E ,,$
' '5 , =,
,
'5 ,,reportedin :: .Inthat case, the Apex Court dealt with the issue as to whether ad%hoc servicerenderedbyanemployeeistobecountedwhileconsidering his service for all intents and purposes and if so, under what circumstances. BC We may refer to sub paras%A & B of Para%44 of the judgmentwhichreadasfollows: F@A '$ ' '$")/'
, !! '
5 !,
$$ 5 '0 "+# , ,' % , / $"'
5 ) 5
, !! '
)'
'5 ' $$ 5 '0 5
, $' )
' $ ++ % /= "+ ,
8
'
+ !! '
)'
, '+% 5 $ '5 '
$$ 5 '0 "+, '5 ) 5 , , !D0 !
'0)'
$
' ' ,"$ !, $ '' /
2' '
$$"'
$', 5 '0
,' % @7A '
+ !! '
)'
, ' ) 5 /% ++8 '0 ! $5" + 558'/% "+, /"
!! '
$'
'", '
!, "' '
"!
5+% ++ 0"+ ,
' , , = $ ' $$ 5 '$8 "+,# ! 5 $
'0, = $8 ++/$"'
5G B6C The case of the State is that the writ petitioners were appointed dehors the rules. According to the State, the promotions weremadeinanad%hocfashionwithoutfollowingtherules.Eventhis situationiscoveredbysubpara%BofPara%44ofthesaiddecisionof theApexCourt.AccordingtothelearnedAdvocateGeneral,thecase oftheStateissquarelycoveredbysubpara%Aofthesaiddecision especially the corollary thereto since the promotion of the writ
06
petitionersonad%hocbasiswasmadedehorstherules.Subpara%A ofPara%44clearlyindicatesthatad%hocserviceisnormallynottobe counted for any purpose, especially when it is made against the rules.ThecorollaryrelieduponbythelearnedAdvocateGeneralonly clarifiesthisissuebysayingthatwheretheinitialappointmentisonly ad%hocandthesaidappointmentisnotinaccordancewiththerules andfurtherthatthesaidappointmentisastopgaparrangement,the officiationinsuchpostcannotbetakenintoaccountforconsidering hisseniority.
BC Inourview,thepresentcasedoesnotfollowundersub para%Aforthefollowingreasons: (i) The ad%hoc appointment though not made according to the rules continued uninterruptedly for 14 years till the services of the writ petitioners, the respondents herein, were regularizedintheyear2006. (ii)Thiswasnotastopgaparrangementbecause there can be no stop gap arrangement which continuesfor14longyears.
0
to what prevented it from making regular appointmentfrom1992till2004. Nothinghasbeenplacedonthefileofthiscasetoshow that there was any stay order granted by any Court, whereby the Statewaspreventedfrommakinganyregularappointment. BC We are clearly of the view that this case is covered by sub para%B of Para%44 of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court which clearly lays down that even if the initial appointment is not madeinaccordancewiththerulesbuttheappointeecontinuesinthe post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.
Therefore, the period of service rendered by the writ petitionersfrom1992tilltheregularizationin2006willbecounted forallintentionalpurposes. In view of the above discussion, this appeal stands dismissed. Beforepartingwiththerecords,wemayobservethatwe are limiting this benefit only to the persons, who have approached thisCourtandthepersonswhohavenotapproachedthisCourtwill notbeentitledtoclaimthisbenefitwithoutobtainingordersfromthis Court.
( ;
0