[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Tripura Gramin Bank To Be Represented By ... vs The Government Of Tripura Represented ... on 9 December, 2025
Page 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.666 of 2024
1. Tripura Gramin Bank to be represented by its General Manager (HRD)
having Head Office at Abhoynagar, Agartala, Post Office- Abhoynagar, Pin-
799005
2. The General Manager (HRD), Tripura Gramin Bank, having Head Office at
Abhoynagar, Agartala, Post Office- Abhoynagar, Pin-799005
3. The Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Hrishyamukh Branch,
Hrishyamukh, South Tripura District, Pin-799156
.........Petitioner(s);
Versus
1. The Government of Tripura represented by Chief Secretary, Secretariat
Building, New Capital Complex, P.S. NCC, Agartala, West Tripura
2. Tripura Human Rights Commission represented by its Secretary having
address at Kunjaban Township Agartala, West Tripura District, Pin-799006
3. Sri Swapan Bhowmik, S/o Late Ananda Chandra Bhowmik, residing at
Hrishyamukh, P.S. Belonia, Dist: South Tripura, Pin-799156
.........Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabir Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.N. Bhattacharyya, G.A.,
Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.,
Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Date of hearing and judgment : 09.12.2025
Whether Fit for Reporting : NO
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Tripura Gramin
Bank challenging Orders No.11 & 12 dt.23.08.2024 and 23.09.2024 of the
second respondent - Tripura Human Rights Commission ["Commission", for
short] in Complaint No.88 of 2023.
2. The third respondent had approached the second respondent-
Commission with the said complaint alleging that he was working as a
Sanitization Worker in the Branch Office of the Tripura Gramin Bank at
Hrishyamukh since 2009, that he was then engaged as a DRW with effect
from 24.12.2012 instead of as a Sanitation Worker; but thereafter the
petitioner-Bank had engaged another Sanitation Worker in the Branch instead
of regularizing his services against a created post since he possesses sufficient
qualification. He alleged that in spite of his sincere work for a long period, the
petitioner created a situation making him leave the work.
3. The Commission then issued notice to the petitioner and then
passed the order on 23.08.2024 stating that it was satisfied that by not
allowing the third respondent to serve in the petitioner-Bank without any
written accepted reasons, the petitioner deprived the third respondent of his
livelihood and thus violated right to life of the third respondent.
4. It observed that it would be difficult for third respondent to shift
to any other profession to maintain his livelihood and to continue the expenses
of education of his children, and the right to life of the third respondent with
dignity had been shaken.
5. The Commission then concluded that it was improper to
discontinue the engagement of the third respondent as DRW by the Branch
Manager, Hrishyamukh Branch of the petitioner-Bank without giving him an
opportunity to clarify or explain certain allegations leveled against him.
6. The Commission then posted the matter to 23.09.2024 for filing
of Action Taken Report (ATR) by the petitioner.
7. On that date, the General Manager of the petitioner-Bank prayed
for grant of four weeks.
8. The third respondent also sought a clarification of the order
passed by the Commission on 23.08.2024, but the Commission did not clarify
its order in his favour as sought by him. It then adjourned the matter to
24.10.2024 for reporting of the action taken.
9. Challenging the same, petitioners filed this Writ Petition.
10. On 18.10.2024 in IA No.01/2024, this Court directed that no
coercive action be taken by the second respondent upon the impugned orders
dt.23.08.2024 and 23.09.2024 against the petitioners.
11. This was reiterated on 23.07.2025 holding that the Commission
prima facie had no jurisdiction in respect of service matters of the nature
mentioned in the impugned order passed by it on 23.08.2024 in Complaint
No.88 of 2023 at the instance of respondent No.3, and stay was granted of the
order dt.23.08.2024 passed by the Commission until further orders.
12. Today the matter is listed for hearing.
13. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the second respondent-
Commission had been constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993. As per the Tripura Human Rights Commission Regulations, 2022 and in
particular, Regulation 9 thereof complaints relating to service matters or
industrial disputes are not ordinarily entertainable by the Commission, but in
spite of the said prohibition, not only was the complaint filed by the third
respondent in relation to his service dispute entertained by the Commission,
but the impugned orders have also been passed on 23.08.2024 and 23.09.2024.
14. Counsel for petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment
dt.10.12.2024 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.542/2024 being Union of
India & others v. Smt. Jyoti Bhowmik & others.
15. Counsel for the third respondent however refuted the said
contention, and supported the orders passed by the Commission.
16. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 defines the term
"human rights" in Section 2(d) thereof meaning that they are rights relating to
life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the
Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by
courts in India.
17. Section 29 of the Act applies to the State Commission for Human
Rights, the provisions relating to the functions of the National Commission
contained in Section 12 of the said Act, and enables the State Commission to
enquire into complaints of violation of human rights or abetment thereof, or
negligence in the prevention of such violation by public servant.
18. In exercise of the power conferred by sub-Section (2) of Section
10 read with Section 29 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the
Tripura Human Rights Commission had made certain regulations.
19. Regulation 9 sets out complaints which are not ordinarily
entertainable by the said Commission, and in Clause (d) thereof, there is a
mention of complaints relating to "service matters or industrial disputes".
20. In the impugned order dt.23.08.2024 passed by the Commission,
there is no reference to the above regulation or consideration as to whether the
complaint raised by the third respondent would indeed fall within the
definition of the term „human rights violation‟.
21. No doubt, in Para 13 of its order, the Commission had recorded
that it had inherent jurisdiction to recommend action for protection of human
rights of an individual/citizen, if it is found that human rights as defined under
the Act are infringed by a public servant or authority; and that right to life is a
most important fact of human right, which seems to have been taken away
whimsically, which needs action according to law.
22. Thus the Commission appears to have adopted an expansive
definition of the term "human rights".
23. Such interpretation is not warranted as held in the judgment in
Union of India & others referred to supra.
24. In Para 11, 12 & 13 of the said judgment, it is stated as under:
"11. The regulations of 2022 have been framed by the learned
Commission in exercise of the powers under Section 10(2) read
with Section 29 of the Act of 1993. The Commission has consciously
chosen to exclude class of complaints which relate to civil disputes,
such as property rights, contractual obligations or are relating to
service matters or industrial disputes or are allegations relating to
public servant or those which do not make out any specific
violation of human rights. The regulation 9 also excludes matters
which are sub-judice before a Court or Tribunal or which are
covered by a judicial verdict or decision of the Commission. The
underlying purpose for framing such a regulation under the parent
Act of 1993 is to exclude categories of complaints which do not fall
in the category of human rights violation and otherwise are
subjected to the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts or specialized
Tribunals or the High Courts.
12. We are constrained to say that the learned Commission
failed to notice the very provision under the regulation 9 framed by
itself while proceeding to entertain a claim which does not fall in
the category of human rights violation. If such an expansive
definition of human rights is read into Section 2(d) of the Act, it
would erode the very purpose of creating a Commission under the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, specifically meant to deal
with complaints relating to violations of human rights, i.e. rights
which are basic, inherent, immutable and inalienable to a person
simply by virtue of his being born a human. The present case
definitely does not fall in that category as such a claim by the
respondent would not have arisen or are enforceable, had she not
been the widow of an employee dying in harness under the Postal
Department. The claim for compassionate appointment is on
account of being a dependant of an employee dying in harness
under the State or its instrumentality. Compassionate appointment
is an exception to the general rule under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India which guarantees equality in public
employment. Reference is only made to the case of Umesh Kumar
Nagpal vrs. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138
rendered by the Apex Court for that purpose.
13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that the
writ petition deserves to be allowed. While passing the order, we
deem it appropriate to observe that the Commission should refrain
from entertaining such matters which are excluded under the
Regulations of 2022 otherwise the Commission may be drawn on a
slippery course likely to cause not only errors of jurisdiction but
also a flood of unwanted litigations when the aggrieved person may
have a statutory or constitutional remedy elsewhere before the
appropriate forum or Court of law. The impugned order dated
08.07.2024 is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed."
25. We completely agree with the above reasoning of the Division
Bench and hold that service disputes cannot be converted into disputes
pertaining to violation of human rights to enable the Commission to entertain
complaints relating to such service disputes as observed in Para 13 of the
judgment in Union of India & others.
26. At Page 112 of the material papers filed by the petitioners, there
is a letter dt.06.02.2024 indicating that the third respondent had already
approached the Labour Directorate of Agartala, West Tripura with regard to
his retrenchment, and it is stated across the Bar that the said complaint has
been dismissed subsequently.
27. Be that as it may, since the Commission has no jurisdiction to
entertain disputes of service nature dealt in the impugned orders, granting
liberty to respondent No.3 to avail any other alternative remedy available to
him at law, the impugned Orders No.10 and 11 both dt.23.08.2024 passed by
the Commission are set aside, and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
28. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pijush/
PULAK BANIK Date: 2025.12.10 15:26:36
+05'30'
