Tripura High Court
Smt. Imala Marak vs The State Of Tripura & Ors on 6 January, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Review Petn. 33 of 2024.
Smt. Imala Marak .........Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura & Ors.
........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, GA.
Mr. D. C Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
ORDER
06.01.2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2] The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner herein is the
wife of the late husband, who was working as Ex-helper under the
Executive Engineer, Udaipur Division, P.W.D (R & B), Gomati Tripura
went to his office on 14.02.2005 but on that day surprisingly he was
missing from the office. Thereafter, the late husband of the petitioner did
not return to his office and subsequently, he was dismissed from service
by a memo dated 07.11.2005. The petitioner herein moved before this
Hon'ble Court but the prayer of the petitioner was dismissed on the
ground of laches. After that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court for setting aside the order of Hon'ble
Single bench dated 05.09.2024. After hearing the appellant (petitioner
herein) the Hon'ble Division Bench passed an order dated 12.11.2024 in
W A No. 115 of 2024.The relevant portion of the order is quoted below :-
"Petitioner is the widow of one Mirendra Marak, Helper who was
dismissed from service by order dated 07.11.2005 passed by Chief
Engineer. PWD (R&B), Tripura, Agartala on charges of unauthorized
absence without intimation to the authority since 14.02.2005. Though
the instant dismissal order was challenged after much delay in WP(C)
No.559/2024, but learned counsel points out from para 8 of the
impugned judgment that the learned Writ Court has committed an error
on the face of record by holding that the order of dismissal passed
against the husband of the petitioner way back in 2005 has remained
unchallenged till date......."
Wherein the Division Bench has given liberty to approach
the learned Writ Court in Review Jurisdiction. Hence this petition.
[3] In the earlier order dated 05.09.2024 this Court has
categorically held that it is a case of laches and the petitioner has not
approached this Court with clean hands and the delay for approaching the
Court in 2024 in respect of the relief sought for was not explained when
the husband of the petitioner went either missing or dead since 2005.
[4] The order dated 07.11.2005 which is now under challenge
in 2024 is the order of termination passed in 2005. This Court observed
that the said order of 2005 stood unchallenged for all these years. The
purpose of using the word unchallenged was with the opinion to say that
all these years from 2005 to 2024 the orders stood unchallenged .
[5] Moreover, there is no averment made and no evidence is
placed on record by the petitioner to show what steps the petitioner has
taken to search the husband, and if not convinced with the investigation,
no complaint has been lodged before the complainant authority and with
the police to search from 2005 and even according to the petitioner
when in 2017 an application has been made for obtaining the death
certificate the same was served according to the petitioner in 2020 and
no steps from 2020 has been initiated for claiming any legitimate rights
conferred under the statue.
In view of the above, this court finds that the petitioner is
not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the review petition stands
dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall
stand closed
JUDGE
Paritosh
SABYASAC Digitally signed by
SABYASACHI GHOSH
HI GHOSH Date: 2025.01.10
13:30:36 +05'30'
