Tripura High Court
Sri Sanjoy Kanti Chanda Alias Sanjoy ... vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 4 March, 2025
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
IA No.01 of 2024 IN Review Pet No.34 of 2024
Sri Sanjoy Kanti Chanda alias Sanjoy Chanda and others
...... Applicant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Tripura and others
...... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mrs. R. Purkayastha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
=O=R=D=E=R=
04/03/2025
Heard Mrs. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the applicant-
petitioners and Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government
Advocate on the prayer for condonation of delay of 141 days in preferring
the instant review petition.
Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioners submits that
petitioners are casual workers and ignorant persons. Therefore, the delay has
occasioned in preferring the instant review petition though it is not
intentional. Therefore, it may be condoned.
Learned counsel for the State objects to the prayer.
However, on consideration of the explanation urged and upon
hearing learned counsel for the parties, delay is condoned
The instant interlocutory application (IA No.01 of 2024) stands
disposed of.
Heard Mrs. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the applicant-
petitioners and Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government
Advocate on the main review petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out from the
impugned order that this Court in appeal vide judgment dated 19.03.2024
interfered only with the direction of the learned Writ Court so far as it
directed the respondents to consider the regularization of service of the
petitioners as Group-D employees within a stipulated period subject to
availability of vacancy in the regular sanctioned posts. The learned Writ
Court had also directed the respondents to consider grant of pay scale at
minimum pay of the basic scale of pay at the lowest level prescribed for
such post in accordance with law. It is submitted that a bare reading of the
operative portion of the impugned order would show that the said direction
has neither been pressed nor interfered by this Court in appeal. It is true that
the writ petitioners/respondents could not enter appearance at the appellate
stage despite service of notice. However, they are casual workers and
serving for considerable period. Therefore, even if the plea of regularization
is not granted because of repeal of the scheme for regularization, the
directions of the learned Writ Court to consider grant of pay scale at
minimum pay of the basic scale of pay may be allowed to stand. Since the
impugned judgment has not referred to the instant directions of the learned
Writ Court while allowing the appeal, therefore, the writ petitioners have
preferred the present review petition. It is submitted that appropriate
directions may be issued in the light of the aforesaid circumstances for the
respondents to consider their claim for grant of pay scale at minimum pay of
the basic scale of pay in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State has objected to the
prayer. However, he is not able to controvert that when the appeal was being
argued the later part of the directions of the learned Writ Court were not
pressed. The impugned order does not make any discussion so far as the
directions to consider grant of pay scale at minimum pay of the basic scale
of pay to the petitioner is concerned.
On consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the
review petitioners and the State, it appeals to us that the attention of the
Appellate Court was not drawn to the alternative directions issued by the
learned Writ Court for consideration of grant of pay scale at minimum pay
of the basic scale of pay though the appeal was allowed. In that sense, the
impugned judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of record
which deserves to be corrected in review jurisdiction. Accordingly, we are of
the considered view that the directions of the learned Writ Court so far as
consideration of grant of pay scale at minimum pay of the basic scale of pay
is concerned since not explicitly interfered by the Appellate Court be
complied by the State-respondents. Petitioners are at liberty to make a
representation for consideration of their claim for grant of pay scale at
minimum pay of the basic scale of pay which be disposed of by a speaking
order within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
The review petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA) J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH) CJ
DIPESH DEB Date: 2025.03.05 19:07:06
