Tripura High Court
Swadesh Paul vs The State Of Tripura And 2 Ors on 11 September, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 785 of 2023
Swadesh Paul
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and 2 Ors.
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.
Date of hearing and date of
judgment and order : 11.09.2024
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents.
[2] This is a petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
the following relief(s):
(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why writ in the
nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/ directions
of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to
incorporate/include the name of father of the Petitioner, in the
Dependent Family Members List and consequential entry thereof in his
Service Book maintained by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein & to
quash & cancel the impugned letter, dated, 26.09.2019, issued by the
Respondent No.4.
(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the
nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/ directions
of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to
act in compliance and true spirit of OM No. S.11012/12/2016-
CGHS(P), dated, 08.11.2016, issued by the Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, Govt. of India, by incorporating the name of Sri
Biswanath Bhowmik, father of the Petitioner, in his service book under
the head of 'Dependent Family Members List'.
(iii) Make the rules absolute.
(iv) Call for records.
(v) Pass any further Order/Orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered
fit and proper.
[3] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is serving as Assistant
Professor, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Tripura
University (in short TU). The petitioner is genuinely entitled to incorporate his father's
name in the Dependent Family Members List and consequential entry thereof in his
Service Book, in terms of letter and spirit of OM No. S.11012/12/2016-CGHS(P),
dated, 08.11.2016, issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India.
The petitioner submitted several representations, on 20.03.2020, 05.02.2021 &
03.11.2022 before the respondents which failed to evoke any response. The
respondents Nos. 1 to 4 adopted a deaf & dumb procedure over the bonafide claim of
the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner through his engaged counsel issued legal notice
upon the respondents, but till date there is no response of the same. It is further
contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents by the impugned letter
dated 26.09.2019 have not considered the plea of the petitioner and the respondents
have failed to give any reason order for not considering the case of the respondents.
Hence, the instant writ petition filed by the Petitioner.
[4] On the contrary, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondents has submitted before this court that impugned letter is just and
proper and does not need any interference from this court.
[5] Having considered the submission as advanced by the counsel for the
parties and also having perused the record, this Court finds that the impugned letter
dated 26.09.2019 passed by the respondents is without showing any proper reason.
Hence, this court is of the opinion that a fresh reasoned order needs to be passed to
meet proper ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order 26.09.2019 is set aside.
It is also made clear that such exercise of passing the reasoned order shall be executed
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of
the copy of this order.
[6] In view of the above discussion, the impugned letter dated 26.09.2019 is
set aside and this Court remands back the matter to the respondents to pass a reasoned
order.
[7] With the above observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of.
As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
