Tripura High Court
Sri Dipankar Das vs The State Of Tripura on 22 May, 2023
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.425 of 2021
Sri Dipankar Das, Age-40 years
S/O Lt. Shubha Ranjan Das,
R/O- Vill East Gokulpur, P.O-Gokulpur, P.S - RK Pur, District-
Gomati, Pin-799114,
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura
Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Power,
Government of Tripura, P.O- Kunjaban, P.S-New Capital Complex,
District- West Tripura, Pin-799006
2. The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, represented by
its Chairman, Bidyut Bhawan, Banamalipur, P.O- Agartala, P.S- East
Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-799007
3. The Managing Director
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited
Bidyut Bhawan, Banamalipur, P.O-Agartala, P.S- East Agartala,
District- West Tripura, Pin-799007
4. The Additional General Manager,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, Electrical Circle-
Gomati, P.O+P.S- RK Pur, Sub Division- Udaipur, District- Gomati,
Pin-799105
5. The Deputy General Manager,
Electrical Division-Udaipur, P.S+P.S-RK Pur, Sub-Division-
Udaipur,District- Gomati, Pin-799105
....Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing and
Delivery of Judgment & Order : 22/05/2023
Whether fit for reporting : Yes/ No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the
respondents-State. None appears for the respondents-TSECL, though the
name of Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel is showing in the cause list.
2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner while serving
under respondents-TSECL remained absent w.e.f. 10.01.2012 to
03.06.2019. According to petitioner, he was suffering from illness during
that relevant period of time and he submitted medical certificate and other
related documents in support of his plea that he was suffering from
illness. On 04.06.2019, the petitioner joined his duties.
3. Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that on 04.06.2019 the petitioner has joined his service, but,
respondents-TSECL have not paid his salary.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. for the
respondents-State has submitted that respondent-TSECL authorities vide
communication dated 24.01.2014 and 05.03.2014 directed the petitioner
to appear before the constituted Medical Board of the State, but, he did
not appear. He further has submitted that there is no document to
substantiate that on those days he was suffering from illness and was not
at his place of posting at Agartala. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. has
also submitted that the petitioner is not attending office to perform his
duties and responsibilities.
5. Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the petitioner submitted repeated applications for medical
leave, but, those have not been considered at all till date.
6. In the light of above, I direct the respondents-TSECL to
consider the applications of the petitioner for granting leave in favour of
him within a period of 2(two) months from today. It is made clear that if
the petitioner has been in service and discharging his duties as assigned to
him under the respondents-TSECL, then, they will consider the payment
of his monthly salary.
With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition stands
disposed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed.
JUDGE
Rohit
