Tripura High Court
Sri Badal Chakraborty vs The State Of Tripura on 27 April, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 76 of 2012 [
Sri Badal Chakraborty
S/o Late Keshab Chakraborty
Khos Bagan, Agartala
At present residing at College Tilla,
Opposite to Vivekananda Club,
P.O. College Tilla, P.S. East Agartala,
District-West Tripura, PIN-799004.
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
Agartala, West Tripura. PIN-799005.
2. The Secretary, Panchayat,
Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
Agartala, West Tripura. PIN-799005.
3. The Director of Panchayat,
Government of Tripura,
Gorkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban,
Agartala, West Tripura.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Bagafa Block, Government of Tripura,
P.O. Shantir Bazar, District-South Tripura.
...........Respondents.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
For the petitioner : Mr. AK Bhowmik, Sr. Advovcate
Mr. R Dutta, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. J Majumdar, Advocate
Date of hearing and
delivery of Judgment
& order : 27.04.2017.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
WP(C) 76 of 2012 Page 1 of 4
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition tells a saga of misfortune. As the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case being Manu P.S. Case No. 06/1992. He was arrested in connection with the said case on 20.12.1993. At that time he was a contingent worker serving under the Directorate of Panchayat on 'no work no pay' basis. For last 19 years the petitioner is out of engagement.
3. There is no dispute that on 04.04.1990 the petitioner was engaged as a contingent worker in the said Directorate by order No. F.1(5-
91)-Esstt/PR/84 dated 04.04.1990 (Annexure- 1 to the writ petition). He was initially engaged at Pratapgarh Gram Panchayat under Bishalgarh Block and subsequently his service was utilized in the Secretariat Administration Department, Agartala.
4. The petitioner has stated that in the trial he was acquitted of the charge and after that he approached the Directorate of Panchayat for his engagement. The petitioner has also challenged the order under No. F.1(23-734)-Esstt/PR/92/10123-36 dated 31.12.1993 whereby his service w.e.f. 20.12.1993 was discontinued. According to the petitioner, that order was arbitrary as he was not given any opportunity for defending himself and thus it was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. Now the petitioner has prayed for quashing the said order dated 31.12.1993, by filing this writ petition, after almost 20 years of the said WP(C) 76 of 2012 Page 2 of 4 order. In addition thereto, the petitioner has urged this Court to allow him to continue in the service with retrospective effect from 20.12.1993.
6. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was a contingent worker. If he was allowed to continue in the service, by this time he would have been regularized in Group-C post as the petitioner had passed the Higher Secondary Examination.
7. On the other side, Mr. J Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the said contention of Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel. He has submitted that the petitioner was a contingent worker. He was not even a temporary employee. He has categorically stated that the contingency for which he was engaged no more exists in the department of Panchayat after 19 years. Thus, reengaging him as a contingent worker does not arise at all. When the intimation was received by the respondent No.3 on 24.12.1993 from the Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Sri Himanshu Roy, that the petitioner was arrested on 20.12.1993 in connection with Manu PS case No. 06(12)/1992 under Section 420/468 IPC the service of the petitioner was simply discontinued w.e.f. 20.12.1993, i.e. the date of arrest. He has further submitted that the initial engagement of the petitioner as a contingent worker was on 'no work no pay' basis and that too without the approval/concurrence of the Finance Department. His engagement was not approved/concurred by the Finance Department till his discontinuation by the order dated 31.12.1993. Thus, the petitioner cannot as a matter of right, claim any relief before this Court.
WP(C) 76 of 2012 Page 3 of 4
8. This Court does not have any reservation in accepting the submission of Mr. J Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and to hold that the petitioner does not have any right to claim the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
9. Before parting with the records, this Court directs the respondent No.3 in particular, to extend humane consideration so that the petitioner can be engaged either as a contingent worker or DRW against any vacancy. It is expected that such consideration shall be made as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner may, with a copy of this order, apply to the respondent No.3 for such consideration at an early date.
10. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. J Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondents for onward transmission.
JUDGE WP(C) 76 of 2012 Page 4 of 4