Mr. S. Datta vs Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee
2021 Latest Caselaw 746 Tri

                                 Page 1 of 3




                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                       Cont.Cas(C) No.26/2021(DO)

For Petitioner(s)               : Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)               : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

Order

02/08/2021 (Akil Kureshi, C.J.)

This petition was disposed of by a detailed order dated

08.07.2021 giving directions to the respondents inter alia to give

retrospective effect to the order of appointment of the petitioner, however,

salary would be paid from the date of joining the duty. The respondents were

also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of cost. While disposing of

the contempt petition, to avoid the possibility of giving rise to fourth

contempt petition we had fixed the proceedings today for verifying the

compliance of the directions of the Court. The respondents have produced

orders showing giving the retrospective effect to the order of appointment of

the petitioner and also produced proof of payment of Rs.50,000/- cost. The

petitioner, however, has forwarded a copy of a letter dated 22.07.2021

written by his advocate on his behalf, addressed to the Secretary, Home

Department, Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department

of Home, Director of Health Services and Director of Family Welfare and

Preventive Medicine. In this letter it is stated that when the petitioner went

to report for duty on 19.07.2021, he was asked to report for duty only on

01.01.2022 and that he could not be allowed to join the duty on the post on

19.07.2021.

If what has been stated in the said letter dated 22.07.2021 is

true, it presents an extremely disturbing aspect of the Government officials

with impunity and continuously treating the Court orders with disdain and

compounding serious contempt they had already committed previously. The

offer of appointment pursuant to the Court judgment stated that the

petitioner should report for duty by 01.01.2022. It did not and could not

have asked the petitioner to report for duty not earlier than 01.01.2022. That

is how we had understood the appointment order and that is how only it can

be understood. The stand taken by the administration of not allowing the

petitioner to resume duty before 01.01.2022 is nothing but an act of

harassment and vindictiveness. Under the circumstances, we revive the

contempt proceedings and direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to remain

personally and physically present before the Court on next date of hearing if

by today evening the petitioner is not allowed to resume his duties.

List the matter on 09.08.2021.

This order is passed in presence of and after hearing learned

Government Advocate Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee who shall communicate

the same to the respondents for its compliance. The respondents shall also

file an affidavit clarifying the position emerging from the petitioner's letter

dated 22.07.2021. We make it clear that if there is no satisfactory

explanation, we shall pursue this contempt proceedings against the

respondents No.1 and 2 in all seriousness. No further time will be granted

for filing affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner shall supply a copy of the letter

dated 22.07.2021 to Government Advocate today itself.

   (ARINDAM LODH), J                             (AKIL KURESHI), CJ




Pulak