- (1.)Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in RSA No. 20 of 1998 by the High Court of Gauhati at Agartala on 17th March, 2006, the State of Tripura and others-employers of respondent no.1 have filed this appeal.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell are as under: Respondent No. 1 had been appointed as a librarian by the Directorate of Education, Government of Tripura by an order dated 04.09.1964 and he had joined his duties at Birchandra Public Library, Agartala on 12.09.1964.
While in service, he was sent to Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi to undergo further education and to get qualification of Bachelor of Library Science during the academic year 1965-66. After completion of his studies, he had resumed his duties on 27.07.1966. Thereafter, the respondent- employee had remained absent without any intimation or sanctioned leave for about one year i.e. from 01.08.1966 to 20.09. 1967. During his absence from service, by letter dated 13.08.1966, the respondent had been called upon to report at the place of his duty within seven days, failing which his service was to be terminated. Inspite of the said notice dated 13.08.1966, the respondent did not report at the place of his work and therefore, a Memorandum dated 14.11.1966 had been issued to the respondent calling upon him to resume his duties, but as the respondent had not resumed his duties, his services had been terminated. It was learnt subsequently that during the period when he had remained unauthorisedly absent, he had undergone further studies and had attained degree of Masters in Library Science and after attaining the said qualification, he had once again approached the concerned authorities for his re-appointment. Looking at the fact that the respondent had become better qualified, he was given a fresh appointment by an order dated 22.11.1967 on purely temporary basis as a librarian and again he was posted at Birchandra Public Library, Agartala, Tripura.

Though the respondent knew it well that by virtue of an order dated 22.11.1967, he was given a fresh appointment on purely temporary basis as a librarian and he had lost his earlier seniority, he made a representation for his seniority in service from the day on which he was initially appointed as a librarian in 1964. The representation made by the respondent was rejected on 31.08.1973. It is also pertinent to note that a draft seniority list of Librarians was published on 11.11.1972 and thereafter, the said draft list was finalized and the final seniority list was published on 24.09.1975. In the said seniority list it was clearly shown that service of the respondent had commenced from 22.11.1967 in pursuance of his fresh appointment.

Inspite of the aforestated fact, the respondent continued to make representations and all his representations were rejected. Ultimately the respondent filed Title Suit No. 175 of 1979 on 19.09.1979 in the Court of Munsif, Sadar, West Tripura, praying for the aforestated reliefs. In the said suit, the respondent had referred to all the representations made by him and had also stated that reply to his last representation was given on 15.1.1979 and therefore, the suit was filed within the period of limitation.

In the written statement, the employer-appellant had taken a specific stand with regard to limitation to the effect that the respondent had filed the suit after more than 13 years because he had joined his service in September, 1967 and he wanted, by virtue of the prayer in the suit, that he should be deemed to have been appointed with effect from 12.08.1964

The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent and therefore, the appellant employer filed Title Appeal No. 28 of 1985 against the judgment dated 18.04.1985 delivered by the trial court. The judgment delivered by the trial court was upheld by the appellate court and therefore, second appeal was filed before the High Court which was also dismissed by virtue of the impugned judgment.

(3.)The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- employer had submitted that the courts below had committed a mistake by believing that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The trial court had expressed its view to the effect that the period of limitation would start from the date on which last representation made by the respondent was decided. Therefore, the suit was treated to have been filed within the period of limitation and the said view was confirmed by both the appellate courts.