STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. versus K.K. ROY

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 12-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. 
A. 
v. 
K.K. ROY 
DECEMBER 12, 2003 
(V.N. KHARE, CJ., AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Promotion-Assured Career Promotion-Promotional avenues-Sin-
gle post cadre-Government employee appointed to a single post cadre C 
with no promotional avenues-Validity of-Held: State should have created 
promotional avenues for its employees-Such employees entitled to one 
higher scale of pay after completion of 12 years and another upon 
completion of 24 years if not promoted in the meanwhile-Constitution of 
India, 1950, Arts. 14 and 16. 
D 
The respondent was appointed as Law Officer-cum-Draftsman in 
the appellant's establishment. There was only one post in the cadre 
with no promotional avenues. The respondent filed a writ petition 
before the High Court for a direction to the appellant to provide at 
least two promotional avenues, which was allowed. Hence the appeal. E 
Disposing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The appellant being a 'State' within the meaning of 
Article 12 of the Constitution should have created promotional avenues 
for the respondent having regard to its constitutional obligations F 
adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Despite 
its constitutional obligations, the State cannot take a stand that as the 
respondent accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appoint-
ment knowing fully well that there was no avenue of appointment, he 
cannot resile therefrom. It is not a case where the pri~iples of estoppel G 
or waiver should be applied having regard to the constitutional 
functions of the State. It is not disputed that other States in India 
having regard to the recommendations made in this behalf by the Pay 
Commission introduced the scheme of Assured Career Promotion in 
terms whereof the incumbent of a post if not promoted within a period H 
781 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A of 12 years is granted one higher scale of pay and another upon 
completion of 24 years if in the meanwhile he had not been promoted 
despite existence of promotional avenu~s. [784-E-H; 785-A) 
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K. G.S. Bhatt, [19891 
B 4 SCC 635 and Dr. Ms. OZ. Hussain v. Union of India, (1990) Supp. SCC 
688, relied on. 
c 
D 
E 
1.2. It is directed that the respondent be given two promotions in 
the next higher scale of pay upon his completion of 12 years and 24 
years in service. (785-E) 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6253 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.97 of the Assam High Court 
at Gauhati in W.A. No. 10 of 1997. 
Navin Prakash, Anurag Shatina for Gopal Singh for. the Appellants. 
S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. : Having been selected by 1he Tripura Public Service 
Commission, the respondent herein was appointed as Law Officer-cum-
Draftsman in the Directorate of Cooperation, Government of Tripura. 
There was only one post in the same Cadre and it had no promotional 
F avenues. 
He filed a representation that his post be upgraded or two 
promotional avenues be provided to him. Several representations made by 
him having not received consideration at the hands of the appellants, the 
respondent herein filed a writ petition seeking for a specific direction upon 
the appellant herein to provide at least two promotional avenues. The said 
contention of the respondent was accepted by the High C::ourt and by reason 
G of its impugned judgment the appellant was directed to provide 'the graded 
scale' to the appellant by providing three grades, the initial being Grade 
III which is the Post of Law Officer-cum-Draftsman _and thereafter Grade 
II and Grade I. Officer of Tripura Judicial Service. It was further directed: 
H 
· "The scale of pay of Grade II Law officer-cum-Draftsman shall 
STATE v. K.K. ROY [SINHA, J.] 
783 
be same as Grade-II officer of the Tripura Judicial Service. The A 
scale of pay of Grade-I Law Officer-cum-Draftsman shall be 
equal to the scale of pay of Grade-I officer of Tripura Judicial 
Service.'' 
Questioning the said direction, the appellants are before us. 
B 
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would 
submit that the High Court went wrong in issuing the aforementioned 
direction. The learned counsel would urge that the respondent herein did 
not have any legal right to be promoted to a higher post far less the right 
to get the scale of pay of Grade I officer of the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.