Sri Deepayan Ghosh And Anr vs Smt. Tanusree Debbarma And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1231 Tri

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1231 Tri
Judgement Date : 10 December, 2021

Tripura High Court

Sri Deepayan Ghosh And Anr vs Smt. Tanusree Debbarma And Anr on 10 December, 2021

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                     Cont.Cas(C)No.76 of 2020
Sri Deepayan Ghosh and Anr.
                                                  ----Petitioner(s)
                              Versus

Smt. Tanusree Debbarma and Anr.
                                                ----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)      :    Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv.

For Respondent(s)      :    Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

                              Order
10/12/2021

Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel

assisted by Ms. N. Chakma (Saha), learned counsel for the

respondents.

02. This is petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India

for initiating a contempt proceeding against the respondents as

they have purportedly violated the judgment and order dated

27.02.2019 delivered in WP(C)No.503 of 2018 by this court. It has

been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the said

judgment dated 27.02.2019 was appealed against by filing a Writ

Appeal being WA 54 of 2019 (The State of Tripura and Anr. vs.

Deepayan Ghosh and two Ors.). The said appeal was dismissed by

the judgment and order dated 27.08.2019 on affirmance. The

petitioners have also produced the order dated 19.11.2019

delivered in WA 192 of 2019 [Annexure-3 to this application] filed

by Tripura State Council for Science and Technology from the said

judgment dated 27.02.2019. The said appeal was disposed of by

granting liberty to the appellants to file a review petition. Such

review petition being Rev. Petition No.75 of 2019 was filed seeking

review of the said judgment dated 27.02.2019. But the review

petition was dismissed by the Single Judge holding that no case

have been made out for review of the judgment. The ground as

taken was found to be contrary to the records and hence, this

court had observed having reproducing the relevant part of the

record that notings demonstrates that the authorities concerned

were in consensus that no contractual post was created. The other

ground was also discarded as it was found that the officer who

was alleged to have manipulated the records was found to have

acted on the instruction of the competent authority. Thus, Mr.

Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that non-implementation

is a serious violation of the mandate of the court.

03. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing

for the respondents has produced a copy of the judgment and

order dated 13.09.2021 delivered in WA 155 of 2021. By the said

appeal, the order dated 15.07.2020 passed in Review Petition 75

of 2019 was challenged. In the course of deciding the said

challenge, the said order dated 27.02.2019 was interfered with by

observing that the selection process was a full-fledged exercise,

inviting applications for eligible candidates who were interviewed

by a panel of seven members including the Chairman. The said

exercise was in consonance to the advertisement as issued in

inviting application from the eligible candidates. Based on results

of the selection process, the appointments were made to the writ

petitioners. According to the Division Bench the council cannot

now resile from the position that offering fixed salary for a period

of three years was only by way of cost-cutting measure.

04. It has been further observed that the council therefore

cannot avoid granting regular scale of pay to the petitioners, after

completion of a period of three years. Thus, the direction as

contained in the order dated 27.02.2019 was partly interfered with

laying down that the petitioners cannot claim the extended benefit

over and above those which were offered in the advertisement or

in the offer of appointment. Finally, it has been observed by the

said judgment dated 13.09.2021 as follows:

"In the result, the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge are modified to the limited extent of provided that both the petitioners shall be granted the regular pay scale upon completion of three years of service after joining. In other words, direction for granting such benefit from the beginning is set aside. The judgments modified to the above. Appeals allowed in part and disposed of accordingly. This shall be done within four months from today."

[Emphasis added]

05. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel on the

basis of said observation has submitted that since in the

subsequent appeal the said judgment has been interfered with,

and a new stipulation has been made for compliance, there is no

element of 'contempt' as alleged or otherwise. Thus, the

jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

or under Article 215 of the Constitution of India cannot be

exercised by this court. If there emerges any conflict between the

two judgments passed by the Division Bench from the same

impugned judgment, this court cannot take a decision ignoring

one of such decision. Having stated thus, Mr. Bhattacharya,

learned senior counsel has pointed out that the subsequent

judgment passed in WA 155 of 2020 was passed in 13.09.2021

with the direction for compliance within four months from the date

of judgment. Four months will expire on 12.01.2022 and hence,

this petition is grossly premature. This court finds sufficient force

in the submission of Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel

appearing for the respondents.