Tripura High Court
Sri Dipak Das & Others vs Sri Jitendra Kumar Sinha & Others on 14 March, 2024
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Cont. Cas(C) No.71 of 2022
Sri Dipak Das & others
........................ Petitioner (s).
Versus
Sri Jitendra Kumar Sinha & others
........................ Respondent(s).
Cont. Cas(C) No.72 of 2022
Sri Indrajit Debnath & others
........................ Petitioner (s).
Versus
Sri Jitendra Kumar Sinha & others
........................ Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Kausik Nath, Advocte.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
14/03/2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties in both the matters.
[2] These two contempt petitions were kept in abeyance in view of the
pendency of the WA No. 118/2022 and WA No.120/2022 preferred by the
appellant-State being aggrieved by the directions contained in the judgment
under offence. The learned appellate Court has decided these two appeals by
setting aside that portion of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Single Judge "to the
extent of the direction of creation of posts within six months from the date of
passing of the judgment". The posts have not been created till date which is not
in dispute.
[3] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
drawn the attention of this Court to the penultimate paragraph of the order
under offence where the writ Court has observed as under:
Thus, the government is under constitutional duty to consider
the absorption of the petitioners after creation of posts of GDA
in the regular establishment. Exercise of creation of posts shall
be completed within six months from today as the petitioners
are discharging duties of GDAs. On survey, it has appeared
that those assignments are perennial in nature, not a stop-gap
mechanism. The enhancement of the wages as directed above
shall be made within a period of three months from the day
when a copy of this judgment will be made available to the
respondents.
[4] Mr. Barman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also
drawn the attention of this Court to the submission of the learned senior
Government Advocate at internal page-4 of the order where he has acceded that
the petitioner may be entitled to draw the wages at the minimum of the pay
scale at the lowest grade of the regular pay scale, meant for GDA, for
discharging the similar duties. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
prayed that the observations in the penultimate paragraph of the order under
offence should be understood in the background context. The learned writ
Court taking into account the grievance pleaded by the petitioner and the
submission of the learned senior Government Advocate rightly observed that
the enhancement of wages should be made within a period of three months
from the day when a copy of the judgment is made available to the
respondents. The expression „as directed above‟ may be just a slip of pen
otherwise the sentence is complete in all respects and should have been given
effect by the respondents. Till date the enhancement of wages to minimum
scale has not been granted to these petitioners neither the posts have been
created. Therefore, the respondents may be hauled up for contempt of the order
dated 08.02.2022.
[5] Mr. D. Sarma, learned Additional Government Advocate has also
placed the same part of the order under offence before this Court and pointed
that the operative directions of this order only relate to creation of posts within
a time bound manner for regularization of the petitioners. The penultimate
paragraph referred to by the petitioners do not amount to a specific directions
as being read by the petitioners. The submission of the learned senior
Government Advocate referred to at page-4 of the order under offence would
not amount to a direction of the Court. As such, there is no specific direction
for enhancement of wages to the minimum scale of pay, as is being understood
by the petitioners. Therefore, the respondents cannot be said to be in contempt
so far as that submission is concerned. However, learned additional
Government Advocate does not dispute that the posts have not yet been
created.
[6] It appears that these contempt petitions have been pending since
2022 on account of pendency of writ appeals preferred by the State of Tripura
against the order under offence. The operative part of the order contains a
direction upon the Government to take initiative for creation of posts and
absorption of the petitioners on assessment of their performance within a
period of three months from the date of creation of the posts. The learned
appellate Court has interfered with this part of the order so far it stipulates a
period within which posts have to be created for absorption of the petitioners.
The respondents may have been sitting over the matter due to pendency of the
writ appeals which have been disposed of in the last month i.e. on 08.02.2024.
So far as the observations of the learned writ Court in the penultimate
paragraph of the order under offence is concerned, it appears to the Court that
there were no "directions as above" indicated in the last part of the penultimate
paragraph regarding enhancement of wages. However, a complete reading of
the order together with the observations made by the learned writ Court
indicates that the learned writ Court made an observation on the enhancement
of wages of the parties within a period of three months. The learned Appellate
Court left it open for the respondent to consider creation of posts. As such, it is
for the respondents to take a decision on the issue of creation of posts and also
on the observations made in the penultimate paragraph of the order on the
question of enhancement of wages of the petitioners within a reasonable time.
[7] The contempt petitions are accordingly disposed of. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Munna S
MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2024.03.15 17:03:03 +05'30'
