Agartala, June 23:
The long-drawn Reservation in Promotion case from Tripura, pending in the Supreme Court for nearly a decade, has taken a troubling turn as fresh allegations emerge against senior government officials and leaders of employee associations. They are accused of transforming the case into a fundraising mechanism, allegedly collecting crores from employees under the guise of legal expenses.
Originally filed in 2005 in the Tripura High Court under WP(C) No. 321/2005 by a group of Public Works Department (PWD) Executive Engineers, the petition challenged certain promotional practices that were claimed to violate constitutional provisions. Over time, the matter expanded, with several connected cases—most notably Jayanta Chakraborty vs. State of Tripura—ultimately leading to a status quo order from the Supreme Court in 2015. Despite over a dozen judicial benches reviewing the issue at various times, a final verdict remains elusive.
Now, frustration is mounting among employees across Scheduled Tribes (ST), Scheduled Castes (SC), and General categories. Many allege that officers’ associations, instead of expediting the legal process, have been preoccupied with collecting substantial amounts as “subscriptions” from members. These contributions, purportedly meant for advocate fees and related legal procedures in the apex court, have reportedly run into crores of rupees. Yet, no special leave petition or application for early hearing has been filed to date.
“This has become nothing more than a fundraising racket,” said a mid-level officer posted in the state Secretariat. “Employees have made contributions in good faith, expecting resolution. But there is no visible effort or urgency from any quarter.”
Adding to the controversy, the state government has allegedly continued making ad hoc promotions in violation of the status quo and without fulfilling the mandated data collection process as outlined in the Supreme Court’s landmark Nagaraj judgment. These promotions, however, are not being counted for seniority or pension benefits, leaving hundreds of employees—particularly retirees post-2005—in a state of legal and financial uncertainty.
Despite the direct impact on service regularization, pension entitlements, and career progression, there has been no substantial legal initiative from the state or the associations involved to clarify or resolve the matter.
The continued ambiguity and perceived inaction have sparked widespread dissatisfaction among state employees, who now demand accountability and a concrete plan to bring the legal battle to a conclusive end.
