Tripura High Court
Sri Pintu Das vs Sri Jitendra Kumar Sinha & Others on 14 July, 2025
Page 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Cont.Cas(C) No.31 of 2025
Sri Pintu Das
.........Petitioner(s);
Versus
Sri Jitendra Kumar Sinha & others
.........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate,
Mr. Subham Majumder, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborti, Sr. Advocate,
Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
Order
14/07/2025
Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
the instant contempt relates to the period of suspension of the petitioner from
27.11.2013 to 28.05.2014 as it was revoked on 28.05.2014 by the then Chief
Secretary, Government of Tripura. In WP(C) No.835/2021, petitioner had
prayed not only for the quashing of the penalty of withholding of three
increments with cumulative effect, but also full pay and allowance for the
period under suspension. The order of penalty of withholding of three
increments was passed on 15.02.2021. After revocation of his suspension on
28.05.2014, he served the department all along till 15.02.2021 and is in service
till date. The learned Writ Court had modified the penalty to withholding of one
increment with cumulative effect and also directed that petitioner is entitled to
full pay and allowance for the period he remained under suspension. On
challenge by the aggrieved State of Tripura in WA No.108/2023, this Court
interfered with that part of the judgment of the learned Writ Court whereby the
learned Court had substituted the penalty of withholding of one increment with
cumulative effect in place of the penalty of withholding of three increments
with cumulative effect imposed by the disciplinary authority. The other part of
the order relating to payment of full salary and allowances for the period of
suspension from 27.11.2013 to 28.05.2014 was not interfered. Thereafter, the
respondents however did not take any decision in that regard. Therefore, the
petitioner has filed the present contempt case being Cont.Cas(C) No.31/2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India and
Another reported in (2015) 17 SCC 625 and submitted that the respondents
cannot withhold full salary and allowance for the period of his suspension.
Learned Advocate General appears for respondent No.3. He
submits that since the order of the learned Writ Court for payment of full salary
and allowance for the period of suspension was not touched upon by the
learned Appellate Court; ideally the contempt should lie before the learned Writ
Court.
We are also of the view that if the order for payment of salary and
allowance for the period of suspension has not been interfered by this Court in
WA No.108/2023, the present contempt petition would lie before the learned
Single Bench. Accordingly, let the matter be placed before the appropriate
Single Bench.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pijush/
MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2025.07.15 14:11:37 +05'30'
