The State Of Tripura vs Sri Arindam Ghosh
2025 Latest Caselaw 12 Tri

Tripura High Court

The State Of Tripura vs Sri Arindam Ghosh on 5 May, 2025

                                            Page 1 of 4




                            HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                  AGARTALA
                             WA No.132 of 2024
                    IA No.01/2024 in WA No.132 of 2024
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Public Works
Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Kunjaban,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (R&B), Government of
Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura
                                                  ......... Appellant/Applicant(s);
                                    Versus
Sri Arindam Ghosh, age-57 years, son of Late Gopal Chandra Ghosh, resident
of Ramnagar Road No.2, P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala, District-West
Tripura, PIN-799002
                                                             .........Respondent(s).

For Appellant/Applicant(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G.A. For Respondent(s) : None.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA

Order 05/05/2025

The impugned order reads as under:

"Heard Mr. Kawsik Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, learned G.A appearing for the State- respondents.

While the petitioner was in service as Assistant Engineer on ad-hoc basis, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. After completion of the proceeding, following penalties were imposed:-

"NOW Therefore, after a careful consideration of all aspects in the matter, the Disciplinary Authority is pleased to declare that-

i) The pay of Accused Officers namely Shri Arindam Ghosh, Assistant Engineer and Shri Sudip Sinha, Junior Engineer be reduced to the lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 3(three) years with cumulative effect.

ii) The actual financial loss to the Government which work out to Rs.2,85,115/-

(Two lakhs eighty five thousand one hudred and fifteen only) be recovered from the Accused Officers, Shri Arindam Ghosh, Assistant Engineer and Shri Sudip Sinha, Junior Engineer equally from their salary.

It is further ordered that the proceeding against Shri Siddhartha Sengupta, Junior Engineer, O/o the SDO, PHE, Sub-Division No.-XVI, Ambasa Dhalai is closed without any prejudiced.

This order will take effect from the date of issue of the order." Thereafter, the respondents had issued Office Order No.823 dated 13.03.2012 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) with some clarifications. It reads as under:-

"GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA OFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION DIVISION AGARTALA-I: TRIPURA(WEST) OFFICE ORDER 823 In pursuance to the memorandum of the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura (Disciplinary Authority) communicated Vide No.F.11-6/GA/AR/2005/2147- 2151 dated 8th December 2010 and subsequent clarification communicated vide

No.F.12(7)/PWD(E)-11/2005 dated 20-01-2012 of Deputy Secretary PWD, the pay of Sri Arindam Ghosh, Assistant Engineer of this office is reduced to the lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 3(three) years with cumulative effect and fixed at Rs. 27,650/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty) only w.e.f. 8-12-2010 and on completion of currency of punishment he will earn increment. Further an amount of Rs. 1, 42, 558/- (Rupees One lakh forty two thousand five hundred fifty eight) only towards the actual financial loss to the Govt, will be recovered in 36 equal installments @ Rs.3,960/- (Rupees Three Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty) only per month.

The excess amount drawn by Sri Ghosh, AE due to imposition of aforesaid penalties will be recovered on preparation of due drawn statement.

This will take immediate effect.

Sd/-

Executive Engineer, DWS Division Agartala-1.

Agartala, Tripura(West) Memo No.F.1E-89/EE/DWS/DIVN/AGT-I/11352-62 Dated, Agartala, the 13-3-12"

It is the grievance of the petitioner that due to pendency of the departmental proceeding, the ad-hoc post of the petitioner was not regularized, though he was treated to be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis from the year 2001.

It is submitted by Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on ad-hoc basis, but, he was not regularized to the said post till date. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not provided with financial benefits out of such ad-hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer due to non-regularization in the said post.

On the other hand, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned G.A has submitted that this writ petition may be disposed with a direction upon the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the State-respondents are directed to consider the matter in accordance with law regarding regularization of the petitioner with all other consequential benefits commensurate to the post of Assistant Engineer.

It is made clear that the entire process shall be completed within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

With the aforesaid orders and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed."

The appellants-State being aggrieved thereby has preferred the

instant appeal which suffers from a delay of 43 days for condonation of which,

IA No.01/2024 has been preferred.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the writ petition

was decided on the first date at the stage of motion. The stand of the

respondents-State could not be brought on record. It is submitted that the

factual matrix of the case of the petitioner is different from those in whose

favour earlier judgments were rendered; such as in the case of Sri Rajib

Majumder v. The State of Tripura & others passed in WP(C) No.223/2016.

Moreover, the writ petitioner was facing a disciplinary enquiry. He was

imposed a penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect

which was effective till March, 2015. Therefore, he cannot claim parity with

other persons allegedly junior to him whose services have been regularized in

the year 2000. The learned Writ Court however, without giving any opportunity

to the State-respondents to file Counter Affidavit, disposed of the writ petition

with a direction upon them to consider the matter in accordance with law

regarding regularization of the petitioner with all other consequential benefits

commensurate to the post of Assistant Engineer. It was also observed that the

entire process should be completed within 3(three) months from the date of

receipt of copy of the order.

Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is but apparent that the

learned Writ Court has not entered into the merits of the case of the petitioner

or rendered any findings as to his claim for regularization. Since the matter lied

at the first instance before the department-State, the learned Writ Court has

remitted the matter for the respondent to consider it in accordance with law. In

effect any consequential benefits would only ensure once the decision is taken

in favour of the writ petitioner. In those circumstances, we do not find any

justifiable reason for the appellant to prefer the instant appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants-State submits that the time

period for carrying out the exercise may be suitably extended.

Since we are not interfering in the matter and the writ petitioner is

not present, this court is not in a position to accede to the aforesaid prayer.

However, it is open for the appellants-State to seek suitable extension of time

by making proper application before the learned Writ Court.

The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the

condonation petition [IA No.01/2024] and the stay petition [IA No.02/2024]

stand closed.

(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J                                    (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ




Pijush/
MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
           Date: 2025.05.06 16:05:01 +05'30'