Mr. S.C. Das vs Mr. Bidyut Majumder
2022 Latest Caselaw 554 Tri

                                  Page 1 of 3




                           HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA
                              WP(C) No.437/2022

For Petitioner(s)                : Mr. S.C. Das, Advocate,
                                   Mr. S. Das, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)                : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Asst. S.G.,

Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

Order 25/05/2022 (Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)

Heard Mr. S.C. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner.

2. It appears that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier

by filing WP(C) No.235 of 2014 which came to be disposed of by a

judgment and order dated 19.02.2019 directing that the petitioner may make

a representation which shall be considered by the Secretary, Rural

Development Department within three months from the date of the order. It

appears that after this direction was passed, the respondent No.2 by a

speaking order dated 16.01.2020 found the petitioner legally entitled to get

the terminal benefits and the benefits were made available to him on

16.06.2020. Accordingly, he claimed in paragraph-15 that he was entitled to

interest on the delayed payments.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brings into challenge a

notification dated 07.11.2014 issued by the Government of Tripura in the

Rural Development Department under Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

4. The Court queried from the learned counsel for the petitioner as

to why he has challenged the validity of Annexure-3 to which the learned

counsel responded by saying that he apprehended that the claim being made

by the petitioner for interest may be objected to by the State on the basis of

the said notification. In other words, based on an apprehension, Annexure-3

has come to be challenged.

5. This matter was listed before the learned Single Judge where

the learned Single Judge coming to a finding that challenge to notification

under Annexure-3 had been raised by the petitioner, referred the matter to a

Division Bench.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of

the considered view that no challenge to a notification can be made merely

based on an apprehension of a possible defence by the State. Accordingly,

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the merits of

the claim, we remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge and grant

liberty to the petitioner if circumstances so warrant to renew his prayer for

challenging Annexure-3 in the future.

Accordingly, Registry is directed to place the matter before the

appropriate Single Bench.

(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ

Pulak