Tripura High Court
Sri Subhash Chandra Biswas vs Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav And Another on 1 October, 2024
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Cont.Cas(C) No.55 of 2024
Sri Subhash Chandra Biswas
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Cont.Cas(C) No.56 of 2024
Sri Dibakar Choudhury
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Cont.Cas(C) No.57 of 2024
Sri Sekhar Bhattacharjee
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Smt. Santi Rani Kalai
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Pranab Nandi
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Dipak Kumar Nandi
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Bhaskar Debbarma
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Dilip Acharjee
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Kilal Ch. Laskar
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Shimal Chandra Saha
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Badal Kumar Choudhuri
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Nitai Majumder
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Jalal Ahmed
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Bijoy Choudhury
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Smt. Milan Chakraborty
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Smt. Ratna Roy
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Smt. Suchitra Paul (Saha)
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Salil Deb
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Smt. Geeta Paul (Biswas)
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Raghunath Sarkar
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Samir Kumar Ghosh
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Gopal Chandra Sen
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Sri Krishna Gopal Dey
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
Smt. Rubi Dutta Deb and others
......... Petitioner(s);
Versus
Dr. Shailesh Kumar Yadav and another
....... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate,
Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate,
Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
Order
01/10/2024
These contempt petitions arise out of the judgment and order dated
19.02.2024 in a batch of writ appeals and writ petition led by WA No.161/2022
[Agartala Municipal Corporation & another v. Smt. Ratna Roy & others].
The respondents-Agartala Municipal Corporation has laid
challenge to the judgment dated 19.02.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Diary No.39779/2024 and analogous appeals in which notices have been issued
on 23.09.2024. The Apex Court has stayed the demand of gratuity as per
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in the meantime.
Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the officials of the
Corporation, submits that since the matter is sub judice before the Apex Court
and there is a stay operating, no case of contempt may lie before this Court.
Therefore, proceedings may be dropped.
Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the petitioners,
does not dispute that an interim order has been passed in the said SLP staying
the demand of gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Having regard to the aforesaid developments, since the matter is
sub judice before the Apex Court and an interim stay has been granted, the
present petitions are disposed, as no case of contempt arises at this stage.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that depending
upon the outcome of the pending SLP liberty may be granted to the petitioners,
to approach this Court if the orders are not complied with.
With such liberty, the instant contempt petitions are disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pijush/
DIPESH DEB Date: 2024.10.04 16:20:54
