Tripura High Court
Dr. Ajit Kumar Ray vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 6 February, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.94 OF 2023
Dr. Ajit Kumar Ray,
S/o. Late Manmohan Ray,
R/o 818 Niti Khand-1, Indirapuram,
Ghaziabad(UP)-201014
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, M/o HRD, New Delhi,
2. The NIT, through the Director, Barjala, Jirania, P.O. Jirania,
Agartala-7990055, West Tripura.
3. The Registrar in Charge, NIT, Barjala, Jirania
P.O.- Jirania, Agartala, West Tripura.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 06.02.2024.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the proceeding letter of communication dated 27 th
September, 2022 which deals with the representation made by the
petitioner seeking settlement of his amounts which are recoverable
from the respondents-NIT towards his services.
2. The respondents without appreciating his
contention has not only rejected his request but also warned the
petitioner of dire consequences in terms of imposing recovery of
heavy amounts for filing meritless cases. Thus, the petitioner by
filing this writ petition prayed before this Court to provide him legal
remedies.
3. This Court, at the admission stage itself, heard the
respondent-counsel, Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI on the
point that no citizen in the country can be deprived of his
opportunity to approach any Court seeking legal remedy. Whether
the same is a merit case or merit-less case, this has to be decided
by a competent Court but not by the respondents
4. In view of the same, vide order dated 13.02.2023
this Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ
petition and also imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the
respondents to the petitioner.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred
a Writ Appeal No.31 of 2023 and contented that the said order had
been passed without giving an opportunity of filing counter affidavit
and to ventilate the case of the respondents.
6. In view of the said submission, the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.08.2023 was pleased to
allow the writ appeal and remand back the writ petition before this
Court for fresh adjudication.
7. Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner reiterated his arguments made before this Court at the
first instance i.e. on 13.02.2023, and contended that the
petitioner's right to approach the Court of law cannot be curtailed
and the manner in which the respondents has addressed in their
communication dated in 27th September, 2022 is high handed and
arbitrary. Accordingly, he prayed to confirm the order passed by the
Court dated 13.02.2023.
8. On the other hand, Mr. B. Majumder, learned
Deputy SGI appearing for the respondents draws the attention of
this Court to para No. 31.f) of their counter affidavit and submits
that the respondents have paid an excess of Rs.1,04,796.00/- to
the petitioner and the respondents are entitled for recovery of the
same as the respondents are not liable to pay any amounts to the
petitioner. Learned Deputy SGI further contended that the
respondents had no intention to make that serious observation in
the letter dated 27th September 2022 which is under challenge in
the writ petition, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on
record.
10. The case of the petitioner is that he has challenged
the order dated 27.09.2022 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner
for fixation of pay from the date of appointment in terms of the
conditions of appointment order under re-employed pensioner rule
4(b)(i) and 4(c) as opted by him and for due promotion, that has
been extended to the other similarly situated persons including the
junior of the petitioner, namely, Dr. A.K. Sarkar. Neither the pay
fixation order nor the order for his due promotion in the post of
DEAN was issued, despite submitting the final relieving order dated
22.01.2013 from the IGFRI. The petitioner is entitled to all other
consequential benefits in terms of the relevant reemployed
pensioner rule 4(b)(i) and 4(c) as opted by him and instructions on
the subject.
In so far as the observation which according to this
Court was unwarranted in the letter dated 27th September, 2022
addressed by the respondents to the petitioner, the relevant portion
of the same is extracted as under:-
"if you further file meritless cases against the NIT
Agartala, the authority of NIT Agartala shall be compelled to sue you for
recovery of the money spent for defending your above noted meritless cases
all of which you have lost till now."
11. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents
explaining the manner in which the said letter was sent and the
same is extracted hereunder:-
"but there was no intention at all to discourge the former
employee to approach to the Hon‟ble Court"
12. Now on the point of the rights of the citizen to
„access justice‟, let us produce relevant Articles enshrined in the
Constitution of India on this particular issue:-
"Article-21. Protection of life and personal liberty.-
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law."
Article 39-A. Equal justice and free legal aid.- The
State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes
justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular,
provide free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes or in any
other way to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not
denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities."
13. Right to Justice, is a Fundamental Right, as it was
made to be part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Kushwaha Vs. Pushap
Sudan reported in (2016) 8 SCC 509 dated 16th July, 2016.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-10 of said
Anita Kushwaha Vs. Pushap Sudan(supra) stated thus on the
point of "access of justice":-
"10. The concept of „access to justice‟ as an invaluable
human right, also recognized in most constitutional democracies as a
fundamental right, has its origin in common law as much as in the Magna
Carta. The Magna Carta lays the foundation for the basic right of access to
courts in the following words:
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or
in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful
judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
To no man will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right to justice.......".
15. The right to justice is fundamental to international
human rights law. The right to justice is recognized under the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) through the Article-
6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person
before the law.
16. This Court clarifies that citizens have legitimate
rights to approach the Court or any forum seeking redressal
whether he has a merit or meritless case. It is not for the
respondents to curb his right and more so, deter the petitioner by
stating dire consequences of recovery of money for the cost of
litigation. With this kind of arbitrary and high-handed attitude, the
respondents cannot prevent and curb the legitimate rights of a
citizen seeking the right to justice. It is for the competent Courts to
decide whether the case of a citizen is having merit or it is
meritless.
17. In so far as the contention made in the counter
affidavit in this regard that the respondents had no intention,
cannot be appreciated, and the same cannot be accepted. Whether
the respondents had intention or not is not the issue but the fact of
the matter is that the words which have been indicated in the letter
dated 27th September, 2022 are surviving till date. The respondents
have not taken any pragmatic and cogent thought on the
observation made by this Court in its earlier order dated 13.02.2023
and to their wisdom they still stick to their observation made in the
letter. Instead of withdrawing the said observation or indicating
before this Court that the same is expunged by way of their counter
affidavit, they only tried to justify by saying that they have „no
intention‟. This again makes this Court to draw an adverse inference
against the conduct of the respondents
18. In view of the same, the present writ petition is
allowed setting aside the order dated 27th September, 2022 passed
by the respondents and the respondents are directed to pay a cost
of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner.
19. However, it is further made clear that in the event
of any settlement of account between both parties, it is always open
for them to raise the said demand by providing the proper
statement of account and to settle the matter accordingly.
20. With the above observation, the present writ
petition is allowed. As a sequel stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally
RAJKUMAR
signed by
SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2024.02.12
SINGHA 10:23:40 +05'30'
