Sri Ajit Chakraborty vs Sri Saradindu Choudhury And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 427 Tri

                                Page 1 of 5




                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                        Cont. Cas(C) No.80 of 2023
Sri Ajit Chakraborty
                                                      .........Petitioner(s);
                                 Versus
Sri Saradindu Choudhury and others
                                                     .........Respondent(s).

Cont. Cas(C) No.81 of 2023 Sri Radheshyam Paul .........Petitioner(s);

Versus Sri Saradindu Choudhury and others .........Respondent(s).

Cont. Cas(C) No.82 of 2023 Sri Manik Paul .........Petitioner(s);

Versus Sri Saradindu Choudhury and others .........Respondent(s).

Cont. Cas(C) No.83 of 2023 Sri Swapan Chandra Rudra Paul .........Petitioner(s);

Versus Sri Saradindu Choudhury and others .........Respondent(s).

Cont. Cas(C) No.84 of 2023 Sri Bimal Chandra Paul .........Petitioner(s);

Versus Sri Saradindu Choudhury and others .........Respondent(s).

Cont. Cas(C) No.85 of 2023 Sri Manik Ghosh .........Petitioner(s);

Versus Sri Saradindu Choudhury and others .........Respondent(s).

Cont. Cas(C) No.86 of 2023 Sri Abdul Hasem .........Petitioner(s);

Versus Sri Saradindu Choudhury and others .........Respondent(s).

Cont. Cas(C) No.87 of 2023 Sri Panulal Das .........Petitioner(s);

Versus Sri Saradindu Choudhury and others .........Respondent(s).

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. R. Guha, Advocate, Ms. Sudipa Nath, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, G.A., Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH

Order 19/05/2023

Let Cont.Cas(C) No.81/2023, Cont.Cas(C) No.82/2023,

Cont.Cas(C) No.83/2023, Cont.Cas(C) No.84/2023, Cont.Cas(C)

No.85/2023, Cont.Cas(C) No.86/2023, Cont.Cas(C) No.87/2023 be

tagged together along with Cont.Cas(C) No.80/2023 as all these contempt

petitions arise out of the common Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2022

passed in a batch of writ petitions. The operative part of the directions

passed by the Writ Court is contained at paragraph 22 to 25 which are

quoted hereunder:

"22. It appears that the BDO has the substantial control over the engagement of the petitioner, but in no case he had issued the termination letter. True it is that the engagement of the petitioner cannot be tantamount to holding of a civil post and as such, the petitioners cannot claim any right over the post for continuance beyond the period as prescribed by the contract of engagement. But in the present case, the respondents have definitely acted arbitrarily and/or they have allowed such action to continue, even though, such action is unsustainable under the rule of law. The Constitutional methods have been given a go bye and hence, this Court does not have any other alternative but to observe that the abrupt disengagement of the petitioners are unsustainable and hence those actions are interfered with and set aside. A pattern that surfaced is grossly against the tenets of the rule of law.

23. Hence, the respondents, except the private respondents, shall reengage the petitioners within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receiving the order of this court. If there is any complaint against the petitioner in respect of their service as the Pump Operator, the concerned Block Development Officer be forwarded with the said complaint. On initial scrutiny of the said complaint if there appears any substance prima facie, the BDO shall issue show cause to the concerned Pump Operator so that he can make his response substantively against such complaint. Thereafter, the BDO may enquire and decide appropriately. So far the issue of resignation is concerned, wherever is applicable, the concerned Block Development Officer shall issue a specific show cause asking whether such resignation has been tendered by the Pump Operator voluntarily or at all and after the response is received from the concerned pump operator, the appropriate order be passed by the BDO.

24. It is really shocking to note that no pubic authority had come forward to lift the veil of the allegations made by the petitioners. In the replies filed by the Official-respondents it has not been clearly denied in order to state that there had been no intimidation at all. What they have stated is that the police was not reported and in one case the police did not find any evidentiary material to hold that there was intimidation. But the element of intimidation loses its relevant when this court has noted that the petitioners were unceremoniously disengaged without any notice or in one case without deciding the reply filed by the petitioner.

25. Fairness in the action is the core value of the rule of law. The public servant cannot be the instrument of any action which goes against the fairness of action. The public servants shall, at all the time, remind themselves that they are obligated by the constitution to protect the rule of law and not to subvert it. Thus, they should reverse all actions which might come in the way of reengagement of the petitioners as directed. However, under the circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant any back wage to the petitioners, but the wages of the working period shall be released within 30 (thirty) days from the day of receiving a copy of this order from the petitioners.

In terms of the above all the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."

Evidently the directions have to be carried out by the

concerned Block Development Officer. It appears that in the main writ

application apart from the Block Development Officer, the State of

Tripura through the Home Department and the other functionaries of the

State were impleaded as party. However, since the order has to be

complied with also at the level of the Block Development Officer

concerned, who is a functionary of the State Government; at this stage,

this Court feels it proper to direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to

serve copy of the contempt petition on Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned

Government Advocate, who in turn shall seek instructions from the

concerned Block Development Officer as to whether the order has been

complied with or not.

Let a show-cause be filed by the concerned Block

Development Officer within a period of 3(three) weeks.

Let the name of Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned

Government Advocate, appear in the Cause List henceforth.

Matters be listed on 27.06.2023.

(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ

Pijush