Tripura High Court
Sri Goutam Kumar Paul vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 4 April, 2023
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA NO.98 OF 2021
Sri Goutam Kumar Paul
......... Appellant(s)
Vs.
The State of Tripura and ors.
....... Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. K. Debnath, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 04.04.2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
This present writ appeal has been filed under Rule 2 of
Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules read with Article
226 of the Constitution of India, against the impugned Judgment
and Order dated 25.01.2021 passed in WP(C) No.503 of 2020,
whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition.
2. The brief fact of this case is that the petitioner
was engaged as a contractual worker under the District
Disability Rehabilitation Centre (DDRC) initially on 02.05.2008
and he continued till 30.06.2020. The petitioner is admittedly a
contractual worker whose service was lastly extended for a
period of one year from 01.07.2019 to 30.06.2020 on the
terms and conditions inter alia that the contractual service can
be discontinued by the authority at any time during the
contract period on the ground of bad performance in
discharging duties/misbehavior/misconduct/indiscipline.
However, the petitioner was allowed to continue in the said
service till the last day in terms of the engagement order dated
04.09.2018. On 30.06.2020, the petitioner was communicated
by the District Disability Rehabilitation officer that since the
performance of the petitioner is found not satisfactory, his
engagement will not be extended after 30.06.2020. In such
circumstances, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing
No.WP(C) No.503 of 2020 before the learned Single Judge for
quashing the impugned memorandum dated 30.06.2020 and
prohibiting the respondents to act in the matter in furtherance
of the said memorandum and further to re-instate him to the
post of Multipurpose Rehabilitation Worker, under the District
Rehabilitation Centre, West Tripura.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ
petition in the following terms:-
"Having appreciated the submission of the learned
counsel for the parties and the materials placed in the proceeding, this
court is of the view that the observation as to performance cannot be
treated as stigmatic. It is within the domain of the employer to assess
the performance for purpose of extension. That cannot be stated as
stigmatic. It does not reflect anything adverse on the skill of the
petitioner at all.
Be that as it may, the said observation, for whatever
purpose, can never be treated as stigmatic by any person in future. But
this court does not find any infirmity in the order of discontinuance as
that has been issued in terms of the condition of service inasmuch as
the nature of the petitioner's service is contractual one and it will
definitely be governed by the conditions of the contract. Considering the
length of the service, the respondents may consider the petitioner's case
for future engagement at their discretion."
4. Hence the appellant herein has filed this present
writ appeal to quash/set aside the impugned Judgment and
Order (Oral) dated 25.01.2021, passed in WP(C) No.503 of
2020, and thereafter, allow this Writ Appeal, thereby
mandating/directing the respondents, to revoke/rescind the
impugned memorandum dated 30.06.2020(Anneuxe-4 to the
WP) and thereupon, re-instate the appellant to the post of
Multipurpose Rehabilitation Worker, under the District
Rehabilitation Centre, West Tripura.
5. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Sr. counsel assisted
by Mr. K. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. S.
Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. Mr. Deb, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the petitioner received appreciation from
the employers from time to time and those certificates of
appreciation are annexed herewith. But the respondents did not
extend the engagement of the appellant since his service was
not found satisfactory. So the same is contradictory and the
appellant herein should be reinstated to service and the
impugned memorandum needs to be quashed.
7. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on
record. For a contractual worker, it is within the domain of the
employer to assess the performance for purpose of extension
and this Court cannot interfere in the same. However, in so far
memorandum dated 30.06.2020 issued against the appellant
herein is concerned, this Court clarifies that it cannot be treated
as a stigma to the service of the appellant.
8. With the above observation and direction, this
present writ appeal stands dismissed. As a sequel, stay if any
stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any stands closed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
suhanjit
