Tripura High Court
Sri Sukanta Choudhury vs Tripura University (A Central ... on 11 January, 2022
Page - 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
1. W.A No. 05 of 2022
Sri Sukanta Choudhury
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
Tripura University (A Central University) and Others.
----- Respondent(s)
2. W.A No. 13 of 2022
Sri Tanmoy Bhowmik
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
Tripura University (A Central University) and Others.
----- Respondent(s)
3. W.A No. 14 of 2022
Sri Pradip Kumar Roy
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
Tripura University (A Central University) and Others.
----- Respondent(s)
In all the Writ Appeals
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
11/01/2022
(Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
Page - 2 of 3
All the writ appeals have came to be filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 07.09.2021 passed in a batch of writ petitions
being W.P(C) No.501 of 2021 and other connected matters.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants (original writ
petitioners) essentially contended that there are two erroneous submissions
which have been recorded in the impugned order. The first is appearing in
paragraph-3 of the impugned judgment where the petitioners had been
referred to as the employees' engaged on contractual basis. It is submitted on
behalf of the appellants that they are DRW or Casual Workers engaged
under Tripura University and not under any contractor. The second issue
which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the
petitioners had claimed for equal pay for equal work. It is submitted on
behalf of the appellants that they were already been given equal pay for
equal work under Office Order dated 22nd September, 2020 by the
respondent-Tripura University (i.e. Annexures-13, 14 and 21 of respective
writ appeals)
Learned counsel for the University submits that the appellants
are engaged by the University under contract and not under any contractor
and further affirmed that the appellants were given equal pay for equal work
in terms of Annexures-13, 14 and 21 of the respective writ appeals.
Apart from the above, on seeing the impugned order we find
that the respondent-Tripura University had already notified an advertisement
for filling up the posts that the petitioners are holding and further that the
Page - 3 of 3
petitioners have participated in the selection process in response to the said
advertisement.
We also find that the appellants' services have also been
extended from 02.01.2022 to 31.12.2022 with a break on 01.01.2022.
Consequently, we find no justifiable cause to entertain the present appeals
and while affirming the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, we
modified the order to the extent as noted hereinabove i.e. the appellants are
employees engaged as DRW or Casual Workers by the University under
contract and the appellants shall be considered in accordance with law
pursuant to advertisement already floated by the University for which the
appellants have already applied.
With the aforesaid modification, the writ appeals stand dispose
of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Dipankar
