Unknown vs For
2024 Latest Caselaw 385 Tri

Tripura High Court

Unknown vs For on 5 March, 2024

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                       Page 1 of 2




                             HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                                   WA. No.229 of 2022
For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. B. Banerjee, Advocate.
                               Ms. R. Majumder, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 05.03.2024 Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant also heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.

The appellant has prayed for the following reliefs:

"i. Admit this appeal.

ii. Call for the records of the W.P. (C) No.428 of 2021 and other relevant records.

iii. Issue notice.

AND iv. After hearing the parties interfered the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 as passed in W.P. (C)No.428 of 2021 by issuing writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner as driver under the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 read with memorandum dated 04.09.2012 and 03.01.2014 within a stipulated period fixed by this Hon'ble Court with all financial benefits to the appellant from the next date when he had completed ten years of service in the same grade where he had been working as Plantation Supervisor (DRW)."

The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Plantation Supervisor (DRW) on 16.04.1989 under the respondent No.6. The respondent No.2 issued memorandum on 21.01.2009, 04.09.2012 and 03.01.2014 regarding regularization of DRW/Casual etc. workers on completion of ten years of service. The petitioner made representation for regularization of his service. Till today, the service of the petitioner has not been regularized. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in the year 2021 and the said has been dismissed on 29.11.2022.

In view of above and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ appeal is filed before passing of any impugned order and the same is premature/not maintainable. However, on the strength of the pleadings and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the learned Single Judge proceeded

to decide the matter in absence of any impugned order, which cannot be challenged under Article-226 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if an opportunity of passing a speaking order is given to the respondent. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single stands set aside affording an opportunity to the respondent for fresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order on the representation would be filed by the petitioner along with relevant documents or any such information, if so advised. The respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation.

Accordingly, the present writ appeal stands disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application, pending if any, shall stands closed.

           B. PALIT, J                                T. AMARNATH GOUD, J




A. Ghosh

 ANJAN       Digitally signed by
             ANJAN GHOSH

 GHOSH       Date: 2024.03.11
             17:18:26 +05'30'