Dismissed

Gobinda Majumder v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC23 Aug 2017WP(C)/1375/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed by a former casual laborer seeking re-engagement. The petitioner claimed entitlement based on a 1998 forwarding letter, but the court found no actual re-engagement order existed and held the petition failed due to laches.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. The High Court Legal Service Committee to pay the petitioner's counsel fee.

Gobinda Majumder Vs the State of Tripura… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

WP(C) NO.1375 OF 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶3

28 23.08.2017

¶4

Heard Mr. Saugata Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the respondents.

¶5

This is the third round of litigation at the instance of the writ petitioner. The petitioner has urged by means of this writ petition to allow him join as the casual worker at Regional Farm for Spices & Betelleaf at Joykatpur pursuant to the 're-engagement' order No.F. 2(136)-Agri (Estt)/06-47 dated 30.05.1998 issued by the respondent No.2 with effect from 30.05.1998 with all consequential benefits.

¶6

There is no dispute that by the memorandum under No.F.2(126)-Agri/SAR(ESTT)/8889/1097-1100 dated 05.06.1989 the petitioner was instructed to join as casual labourer for 5(five) days in a week at Regional Farm for Spices & Betel-leaf at Joykatpur on or before 15.06.1989. But the petitioner did not join the said post in terms of the said memorandum. It further appears from the communication dated 01.11.1989 that the Superintendent of Agriculture, Rajnagar, Argi-Sub-Division had reported to the Director of Agriculture that the petitioner did not join the said post. The said Superintendent sought direction from the Director of Agriculture whether, if the petitioner appeared to join the post, would be allowed to join as the casual labourer or not or the order of his engagement should be treated as canceled.

¶7

The petitioner did nothing and did not even try to join the said post. Later on 30.05.1998 by the

¶8

suhanjit

¶9

letter (Annexure/P-4 to this writ petition) on the basis of which the petitioner has urged to direct the respondents to allow him join as the casual labour. The representation of the petitioner was forwarded for doing the needful.

¶10

For purpose of reference the entire text of the said communication is extracted hereunder:

¶11

“No.F.2(136)-Agri.(Estt)/46/47 Government of Tripura Department of Agriculture

¶12

Agartala Dated. The 30^th May, 1998

¶13

To the Supdt. of Agriculture Rajnagar Agri. Sub-Division Belonia, South Tripura.

¶14

Sub:- Re-engagement of Shri Gobinda Majumder, Casual Labourer.

¶15

Sir,

¶16

Enclosed please find herewith the original copy of the application of Shri Gobinda Majumder, casual labourer your establishment for doing the needful.

¶17

Enclo- As Stated.

¶18

Yours Faithfully

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

(G.C. Ganguli) Additional Director of Agriculture For Director of Agriculture Tripura”

¶21

First and foremost, by the said communication the petitioner was never re-engaged, only a copy of his representation was forwarded for doing the needful. Therefore, the very basis of filing the writ petition is unsustainable.

¶22

From the communication dated 01.07.2003 under No.F.2(3)-SAR(ESTT)/2003-04/182728 dated 01.07.2003 (Annexure-P/5 to this writ petition)

¶23

suhanjit

¶24

it surfaces that there was one initiative for engagement of the casual labourer. However, that communication does not concern the petitioner. To unearth those documents, according to the petitioner he approached the authorities under the R.T.I. Act and thus he gathered all the 'relevant' documents.

¶25

The petitioner filed his first writ petition in the year 2012 being WP(C) No.301 of 2012 which was however allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 29.05.2013.

¶26

Thereafter, the petitioner in terms of the said order dated 29.05.2013 filed one representation. That representation was disposed of by the communication dated 10.10.2013 under No.F.2(164)Agri./Estt./2007-08/P/10389 (Annexure-P/10 to this writ petition). It was observed therein that the petitioner prayer could not be acceded to. However, as unrelented as the petitioner is, he submitted another representation on 22.04.2014 (Annexure-P/11 to this writ petition) for reconsideration of the matter but since there was no such re-consideration he filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 274 of 2016 seeking direction to allow the petitioner join as the causal labourer on the basis of the memorandum dated 30.05.1998. However the said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 30.04.2016 with direction to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on 24.04.2014 within a period of 3(three) months from today. The petitioner submitted a copy of the judgment and order to the Director of Agriculture on 07.06.2014. The Director of Agriculture by the communication dated 18.07.2016 (Annexure-P/14 to this writ petition) has reiterated the stand of the Government that the petitioner cannot be allowed to join the said post. Hence, this writ petition.

¶27

suhanjit

¶28

The Government has taken the stand that since the petitioner did not join the post of casual labourer in time, the said offer of engagement did not survive.

¶29

Having regard to the avertments and the documents placed with the writ petition and also on hearing the learned counsel of the parties this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition cannot survive for laches and there is no merit as well for consideration, as there was no re-engagement order as claimed by the petitioner.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.

¶31

The High Court Legal Service Committee shall pay the fee of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as per the scheduled rate.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

suhanjit

Gobinda Majumder v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobinda Majumder v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dulu Rani Bhowmik Vs Heirs of Dilip Kr Goswami, Anupama Goswami and Ors.

Tapas Shil Vs Branch Manager National Ins. Co. Ltd.

Union of India Vs Kanai Debnath and Anr.

Tamal Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Subhrangshu Saha Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Rajan Bhattacherjee Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.