Sri Udai Kr. Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 792 Tri

                                    Page 1 of 2




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                            WP(C) No.602 of 2023
Sri Udai Kr. Debbarma
                                                         ...... Petitioner(s)
                            VERSUS
The State of Tripura and others
                                                       ...... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Senior Advocate.

Mr. K. Chakraborty, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarkar, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH

_O_R_D_E_R_

22/09/2023

Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for

the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the

State.

Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the

respondents to designate him as Junior Engineer, Grade-I in the corresponding

pay scale on completion of four years' of service in the post of Junior Engineer,

Grade-II w.e.f. the date of his joining. Petitioner has also made a prayer for

directing the respondents to regularize his services w.e.f. 26.03.1996 when he

was engaged as Junior Engineer (Mechanical), Grade-I on ad-hoc basis instead

of 30.07.2004 with consequential benefits. Petitioner has placed reliance on

certain decisions rendered in the case of other persons such as Annexure-9

[judgment dated 25.02.2020 passed in WP(C) No.1099 of 2018], Annexure-10

[judgment dated 20.12.2019 passed in WP(C) No.191 of 2018], Annexure-11

[judgment dated 16.03.2023 passed in WP(C) No.606 of 2022] and Annexure-

12 [order dated 24.04.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in WP(C) No.606 of

2022]. He has also made a representation vide Annexure-8 dated 27.06.2023

but since the grievances of the petitioner are not being redressed, he has

approached this Court.

Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner

submits that to suffice it, the writ petition may be disposed of in similar lines as

in the case of other similarly situated petitioners by directing the respondents to

take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law

within a stipulated time.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter has

been taken up for the first time as such instructions are awaited. However, if so

directed, the competent authority under the respondent Department shall

consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.

Having regard to the bare facts taken note above and that the

petitioner has approached the competent authority/respondent No.2, at this

instance, without making any observations on the merits of the case of the

petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the competent

authority/ respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation of the

petitioner in accordance with law within a reasonable time, preferably

12(twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

                                                    (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ




Rudradeep   RUDRADEEP   Digitally signed by
                        RUDRADEEP BANERJEE

            BANERJEE    Date: 2023.09.22 14:50:31
                        +05'30'