Tripura High Court
Ms. Aradhita Debbarma vs Mr. Mangal Debbarma on 19 November, 2021
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Cont.Cas(C) No.81/2021
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aradhita Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
Order
19/11/2021
This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance
of directions issued by this Court in WP(C) No.106 of 2021 which was
disposed of by order and judgment dated 25.03.2021. The case was disposed
of with the following three directions:
"(i) The respondents shall issue a formal order
releasing the provisional pension of the petitioner within one
month from today. Such provisional pension with arrears from
the date of superannuation till date shall be paid over to the
petitioner within a month thereafter.
(ii) If there are any other post retiral benefits which the
petitioner can claim under the Service Rules despite pendency
of the departmental inquiry, the same may also be released.
(iii) The departmental inquiry shall be completed
within six months subject to cooperation by the petitioner in
early disposal of the inquiry."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provisional
pension has been granted in favour of the petitioner. However, the post
retiral benefits have not been released in favour of the petitioner and which
have been directed to be released despite pendency of the departmental
proceedings and the departmental inquiry was directed to be completed
within six months.
Perused the affidavit of the State. Although provisional pension
has been released in favour of the writ petitioner and certain steps have been
taken by the State for release of post retiral benefits since this Court had
directed release of the said amount despite the pendency of the departmental
proceedings no justifiable cause is shown for delay in release of such post
retiral benefits. Therefore, on the undertaking given by the learned counsel
for the contemnor he is granted a further period of 15 days to comply with
the direction regarding remittance of the post retiral benefits in favour of the
writ petitioner.
The affidavit by the contemnor also submits certain reasons
why the departmental proceedings have not been concluded although it is
stated that out of the 12 prosecution witnesses, 11 have been examined and
the twelfth person who the department intended to rely upon is outside the
State and consequently, this fact along with the fact that Covid-19 pandemic
was in force, the proceedings could not be completed within the time as
directed. This Court is of the considered view although the direction was a
time bound direction justifiable cause existed for non-conclusion of the
departmental proceedings within the period as directed but directs that the
prosecution witness (departmental witness) who is yet to be examined shall
be produced before the DP within a period of two weeks from today and in
the event the said witness does not appear, the prosecution case shall stand
concluded and the delinquent may be granted opportunity for leading
defence evidence, if any, and the entire proceedings must be concluded
within a further period of six weeks from today. The aforesaid directions are
independent of the earlier directions passed in this matter. It is made clear
that no further time will be granted in this matter.
Matter be listed on 21.01.2022.
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Pulak
