Tripura High Court
Smt. Jhunu Majumder vs The State Of Tripura on 19 February, 2019
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 236 OF 2014
Smt. Jhunu Majumder,
W/o Chandan Chakraborti,
Ker Chowmohani (Behind Kalibari & beside Agri-Association)
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District: West Tripura, PIN-7990001.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura
To be represented by the Chief Secretary to the
Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat,
New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, District: West Tripura, PIN-799006.
2. The Secretary-in-charge of the
Rural Development Department,
Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat,
New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, District: West Tripura, PIN-799006.
3.The Secretary-in-charge of the
Finance Department,
Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat,
New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, District: West Tripura, PIN-799006.
4. Director (Projects),
Rural Development Department,
Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat,
New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, District: West Tripura, PIN-799006.
5. District Rural Development Agency,
West Tripura District, Agartala, to be represented by its
Chief Executive Officer, (D.M. & Collector, West Tripura District),
P.O. Agartala, District : West Tripura, 799001.
6. The Project Director, DRDA, West Tripura,
Old Secretariat Building, Agartala,
P.O. Agartala, West Tripura, 799001.
7. The Union of India, to be represented by the
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Rural Development, Krishi Bhawan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi-110001.
----Respondent(s)
Page 2 of 4
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Sankar Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S.C. Das, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sharma, Addl. G.A. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, CGC.
Whether fit for reporting: Yes/No HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Judgment & Order(Oral) 19/02/2019 (Sanjay Karol,CJ) The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) to issue a Rule calling unto this Hon'ble Court the records relevant to this petition.
(ii) to issue a rule calling upon the respondents, particularly, the respondent No.2 to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or any other Writ or Writs or order in the nature thereof shall not be issued setting aside and quashing regulation (2) of the 'District Rural Development Agency Employees Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity and Leave Encashment Regulations of Tripura, 2014' (Annexure-16.A supra to the Writ petition); and
(iii) to issue a rule calling upon the respondents and each one of them, in particular respondent No.2, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other Writ or Writs or order in the nature thereof shall not be issued directing them--
(a) to make a provision in the said Regulations, 2014' (Annexure-16.A supra to the Writ petition) covering entitlement of the petitioner for gratuity and leave salary encashment; and
(b) to make a provision in the said Regulations, 2014 for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity leave encashment; and
(c) pending incorporation of the said two provisions in the said Regulations, 2014 as stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) above to make payment of the gratuity and Page 3 of 4 leave salary to the petitioner with interest thereon @ 12% per annum with costs;
(iv) to call for the records; and
(v) after hearing the parties be pleased to make the
Rule absolute in terms of (ii) and (iii) above.
2. The petitioner has pleaded that the cutoff date prescribed in the notification dated 7th November, 2014 is arbitrary. The benefit in terms of the notification ought to have been offered to all the employees who at some point of time were on the roles of the District Rural Development Agency. In any event, it is argued that the State, of its own, independent of the said notification, has been according benefits to such of these employees who are similarly situated as that of the present petitioner. In that regard representation/legal notice dated 29th January, 2014 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) stands filed and is pending consideration with the authorities.
3. Under instructions from the writ petitioner, Mr. S. Deb, learned Sr. counsel contended that petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the authorities to consider and decide the legal notice dated 29th January, 2014 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) within a time bound period, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court, if so required and desired on the same and subsequent cause of action.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the same. As such, the petition is disposed of on the following mutually agreeable terms:
(a) Petitioner's representation/legal notice dated 29th January, 2014 shall positively be considered and decided by the Secretary, Rural Development Page 4 of 4 Department, Respondent No.2, within a period of three months from today. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to place additional material in support of earlier representation which shall positively so done within a period of 15 days from today.
(b) Also if so required or desired, opportunity of personal hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner.
(c) Representation shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law, by assigning reasons. Copy whereof shall also be supplied to the petitioner.
(d) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court if so required and desired on the same and subsequent cause of action.
(e) All issues are left open.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (SANJAY KAROL),CJ.