Anup Kumar Chakraborty vs State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 632 Tri

                           HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA

                               WP(C) 613 of 2020

   Anup Kumar Chakraborty
   S/o. Lt. Debendra Kr. Chakraborty
   Akhaura Road, Joynagar, Agartala,
   P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, PIN 799001
                                                               -----Petitioner(s)

                                      Versus
1. State of Tripura
   To be represented by the Principal Secretary,
   Department of Health and Family Welfare,
   New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
   Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
   West Tripura, PIN-799006)

2. The Chairman
   District Disability Rehabilitation Center, West Tripura
   The DM and Collector, West Tripura
   Shyamalibazar, Agartala, Tripura-799006

3. The District Disability Rehabilitation Officer
   To be represented by the Member Secretary,
   District Disability Rehabilitation Center, West Tripura,
   Shyamalibazar, Agartala, Tripura-799006

4. The Member Secretary cum Nodal Officer
   District Disability Rehabilitation Center,West Tripura,
   Shyamalibazar, Agartala, Tripura-799006

5. The Director of Health Service
   Govt of Tripura, New Capital Complex,
   P. N, Gorkhabasti, Kunjaban, Agartala, Tripura 799006

6. The Director of Social Welfare and Social Education
   Govt of Tripura Malancha, Ujan Abhoynagar, Agartala, West Tripura

                                                              -----Respondent(s)

   For Petitioner(s)                    : Mr. P Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
                                          Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
                                          Mr. K. Nath, Adv.
   For Respondent(s)                    : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA.
                                          Mr. P. Saha, Adv.
   Date of hearing & date of
   passing judgment and order           : 05.07.2022.
   Whether fit for reporting            : Yes/ No





              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

                          Judgment & Order (Oral)

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

whereby the petition has urged to quash and cancel the memorandum

dated 30.06.2020 passed by the District Disability Rehabilitation Officer,

District Disability Rehabilitation Centre (West).

[2] It is the case of the petitioner that from 2002 the petitioner

was put in contractual services since 02.04.2002 to 30.12.2002 as Clerk-

cum-Accountant/Store under District Disability Rehabilitation Centre

(West). It is further submitted by the petitioner that his services were

renewed from time to time. The present term has come to an end on

30.06.2020. On the said date, the respondents in spite of extending his

service have served a memorandum dated 30.06.2020 which is impugned

herein informing the petitioner not to attend his services beyond

30.06.2020 as his service were not satisfactory. Hence, the present writ

petition.

[3] The counsel for the petitioner submits before this court the

observation made by the respondents stating that the service of the

petitioner was not satisfactory is adverse remark which creates a stigma.

Moreover, counsel for the petitioner also submits that before making such

decision, an opportunity ought to have been given by the respondents by

following principle of natural justice. The respondents have not followed

and the same is violation of law, according to the petitioner. Further, the

counsel relied upon the judgment dated 18.05.2022 passed by this court in

Ditul Debbarma vs State of Tripura and Others and prayed before this

court to set aside the impugned memorandum dated 30.06.2020 and allow

the petitioner to continue his service.

[4] The counsel appearing for the respondents submits before this

court that since it is contractual obligation, the petitioner has no right to

continue beyond the period beyond which he has been employed. The

respondent counsel further submits the judgment relied by the petitioner is

not applicable to the facts of the case.

[5]          Heard both sides.

[6]          Admittedly, the petitioner was in service from 02.04.2002 to

30.06.2020. It is apparent from the records that his services were all

through renewed until this time. Even the present tenure which came to an

end on 30.06.2020 has not been interfered by the respondent and they

allowed him to continue till the contractual period gets over. In so far as

the continuity of service beyond 30.06.2020 is concern, it is not legitimate

expectation or the promise made by the respondents for continuing his

service beyond 30.06.2020. In so far as the violation of principle of audi

alteram is concern, the question of issuing any notice before putting an end

to the tenure of petitioner's service is not indicated in the service condition

in the year 2002 when the petitioner got into service to the said post for

the first time.

[7] The present memorandum does not speak of termination of the

petitioner but only discontinuing the petitioner from service since the

contractual obligation came to an end. This court, at this juncture, cannot

give any direction to the respondents to enforce the contract to the

petitioner despite his tenure is complete.

[8] So far as the judgment relied by the petitioner is concern, the

said judgment is with regard to the termination of service of the petitioner

by the respondent therein which was under challenge. The said termination

order which was not preceded by any show cause notice was challenged

and the same has hit the doctrine of audi alteram. But the present case is

not of that nature. The fact of the case for which judgment has been

referred by the petitioner is different and not convincing.

[9] In view of above discussion, the writ petition being devoid of

merit stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Dipak