Tripura High Court
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee vs Mr. D. Bhattacharjee on 9 February, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CONT. CAS(C) No.155 of 2019
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
09.02.2021
Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents. Mr. Saju Wahi, the Director of Higher Education, Tripura has
appeared in person to assist the court to understand and gather the effects
of the intra-office communication under No. F.7(343)-DHE/NG/2019/2804
dated 16.06.2020 which has been submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner.
This court had accommodated Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents to ascertain the veracity of the said
communication dated 16.06.2020.
Today Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents as well
Mr. Wahi, the Director of Higher Education, Tripura have clearly stated that
the communication dated 16.06.2016 reflects the mode that the Director of
Higher Education has preferred to follow for regularization of the petitioner.
True it is that in terms of the judgment and order dated 12.04.2018
delivered in W.P.(C) No.50 of 2015. By the memorandum dated 01.02.2020
[Annexure-R/2 to the reply filed by the respondents] the Director of Higher
Education has appointed the petitioner in the post of Lower Division Clerk
[LDC], Group-C, with prospective effect. But for the clarification given by the
Director of Higher Education by dint of the intra-office communication it has
become manifestly clear that the said appointment will take effect from
01.07.2008 in terms of the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008
(Part) dated 01.09.2008 [Annexure-7 to the rejoinder]. In the said
memorandum, it has been expressly provided that the subject to fulfillment
of the other conditions, the eligible workers will be provided pay sale in the
relevant grade for their regularization and that will take effect from
01.07.2008. It may be pertinent to note that by the said memorandum
dated 01.09.2008, it has been provided that DRW/Casual/Contingent workers
who were engaged on a full time basis in different Departments with or
without concurrence of Finance Department and have completed 10 years of
service as on 31.03.2008 other than Permanent Labourers, Part-time
workers, Anganwadi Workers and Helpers, Home Guards, Teachers and
Workers engaged under SSA and other Schemes/programmes, may be
considered for regularization.
There is no dispute that the petitioner was engaged on 08.04.1994
and he had completed 10 years of service in the year 2004 but he was not
regularized despite the memorandum dated 01.09.2008. By the judgment
and order dated 12.04.2018, this court had directed as follows:
"19. Having scrutinized the records and the judgment dated 04.03.2016 in
particular this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the
similar direction as made in Sajal Kar and Ors. (supra). In terms of the
memorandum No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 read with
the memorandum dated 03.01.2014 it is directed that the petitioner shall be
extended similar consideration within a period of 3(three) months from the
date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order."
The respondents had appointed the petitioner by the memorandum
dated 01.02.2020 prospectively and as such, this proceeding under Section
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the
Constitution has been sought to be initiated. But, in view of the intra office
communication dated 16.06.2020, which has been made part of this record,
the said regularization, by way of appointment in the post of LDC, has taken
effect from 01.07.2008 and that has been vouched by the Director of Higher
Education.
In view of that exposition, this court does not find any material to
draw a contempt proceeding against the respondents.
Accordingly, this proceeding stands closed.
The notice as issued on the respondents is recalled.
JUDGE
Sujay
