Tripura High Court
Mr. Somik Deb vs Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee on 7 November, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WP(C) No.681 of 2024
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. P. L. Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
_F_I_N_A_L_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
07.11.2024
Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. L.
Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also heard Mr. Kohinoor N.
Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.
[2] The present petition has been filed to restore the original contract of
the petitioner without any downsizing and the petitioner may be permitted to
execute the whole project of imparting employment linked skills and education to
4000 students as per the government approved cost norms.
[3] The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
i. Issue rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause
as to why a writ of certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for
directing them, to transmit the records, relevant to the subject matter of this
writ petition for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the
petitioner.
ii. Issue rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause
as to why a writ of mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued,
for mandating/directing them, to forthwith mandating/directing the
respondents, to restore the original contract of the petitioner, without any
downsizing, and the petitioner may be permitted to execute the whole project
of imparting employment linked skills and education to 4000 students, as per
the government approved cost norms;
iii. After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rule absolute in terms of i.
to ii. above."
[4] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is into hospitality
providing medical services to the society as well as skilled development and proper
training as a part of its social responsibility and imparting the need based programs.
In the process, the petitioner earlier rendered services in the State of Tripura and
due to widespread of COVID-19 the scheme could not be concluded and the matter
was referred to arbitration and the same has been ended in favour of the petitioner
holding the termination of the services of the petitioner was incorrect and the same
were restored and the prays for restoration of the scheme in favour of the petitioner
by treating his status as an ante termination. In this regard, the petitioner has also
made his representation dated 28th October, 2024 to the respondents and the same is
pending consideration.
[5] The learned Government Advocate for the respondents represented
that the matter has to be decided by the government since they have already
approached. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has
placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anantdeep Singh v.
The High Court of Punjab and Harayana at Chandigarh & Another in
Miscellaneous Application No.267 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.3082 of 2022 at
paragraph 21 wherein, it has been held as under:
"21. Once the termination order is set aside and judgment of the High Court
dismissing the writ petition challenging the said termination order has also
been set aside, the natural consequence is that the employee should be taken
back in service and thereafter proceeded with as per the directions. Once the
termination order is set aside then the employee is deemed to be in service. We
find no justification in the inaction of the High Court and also the State in not
taking back the appellant into service after the order dated 20.04.2022. No
decision was taken either by the High Court or by the State of taking back the
appellant into service and no decision was made regarding the back wages from
the date the termination order had been passed till the date of reinstatement
which should be the date of judgment of this Court. In any case, the appellant
was entitled to salary from the date of judgment dated 20.04.2022 till fresh
termination order was passed on 02.04.2022. The appellant would thus be
entitled to full salary for the above period to be calculated with all benefits
admissible treating the appellant to be in continuous service."
[6] Heard both sides and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the
considered view that it is the need of the hour where the State of Tripura has
suffered huge natural disaster because of unforeseen flood and affecting the State
and its natural resources and also causing huge destruction in the source of
employment, education and health.
[7] Now, since the petitioner is before this Court with a submission that
they would impart certain skilled education and provide medical support regarding
hygiene and other facilities, considering the said submission and after going
through the correspondence dated 28th October, 2024 and as per the submissions
made by the learned senior counsel that on several occasions some oral requests
were made with the respondents, this Court without expressing any opinion on
merits, directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner with a
pragmatic view and take appropriate decision in accordance with law as early as
possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the
copy of this order.
[8] In that view of the matter, the present petition stands disposed of. As
a sequel, miscellaneous application, pending if any, shall stands closed.
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
A. Ghosh
