Disposed

Abdul Haque v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC11 Aug 2017WP(C)/861/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought absorption in the Directorate of Minority Welfare after prolonged deputation. Court directed respondent departments to decide on absorption within six weeks of receiving the order copy, allowing further approach if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

Respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 directed to take a decision on petitioner's absorption within six weeks of receiving the order copy and communicate it.

Abdul Haque Vs the State of Tripura and Ors. — Service and Employment | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 861 of 2017

¶4

Mr. Abdul Haque ,

¶5

son of late Abdul Gani, resident of Aralia, P.O. Sonamura, P.S. Sonamura, District- Sepahijala, Tripura

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Versus –

¶8

The State of Tripura , represented by the Secretary, Minority Welfare Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, P.O. Secretariat, Agartala, West Tripura

¶9

The Secretary ,

¶10

Finance Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex,P.O. Secretariat, Agartala, West Tripura

¶11

The Director , Minority Welfare Department, Old Secretariat Complex, Agartala, West Tripura

¶12

The Chief Executive Officer , Tripura Board of Wakfs, Old Secretariat Complex, Agartala, West Tripura

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶16

For the petitioner : Mr. CS Sinha, Advocate For respondent No.1,2,3 : Mr. S.Chakraborty, Addl. GA Date of hearing & delivery of Judgment and Order : 11.08.2017 Whether fit for reporting : NO

¶17

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶18

Heard Mr. CS Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1,2 and 3. This court does not find any requirement of issuing any notice upon the respondent no.4.

¶19

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has fundamentally challenged the inaction of the respondents in respect of his absorption in the post of UDC/Accountant in the W.P.(C) No. 861 of 2017

¶20

¶21

Minority Welfare Department, Government of Tripura. The petitioner has further urged that his absorption shall be made w.e.f. 03.10.2006 with all consequential service benefits. The petitioner has further averred that on 21.01.1990, the petitioner was engaged as the daily rated worker (DRW) to discharge the duty of Lower Division Clerk (for short LDC). Thereafter, he was given the appointment on 25.03.1991, but that was not acted upon. Finally, he was regularized in the post of LDC w.e.f. 20.09.2001 by the Tripura Board of Wakfs. By the order under No. F.2(4)-TBW/01/858 dated 26.09.2006, the petitioner’s service was placed on deputation in the Directorate of Minority Welfare, Government of Tripura until further order. In terms of the said order dated 26.09.2006, the petitioner joined in the Directorate of Minority Welfare on 03.10.2006. While, he was on deputation the Board of Wakfs promoted the petitioner to the post of Upper Division Clerk on regular basis with effect from 01.10.2006 by the order under No. F.1(3)/TBW/2001/1308-12 dated 13.05.2010, and asked him to continue in the same establishment. By virtue of the said order dated 13.05.2010 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), the petitioner is continuing in the said establishment [the Directorate of Minorities Welfare] as the UDC till now and it is not even contemplated to repatriate him to the parent department. On 05.03.2011, as stated by the petitioner in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the Tripura Board of Wakf took a resolution giving their consent for absorption of the petitioner as the UDC in the Directorate of Minority Welfare

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 861 of 2017

¶23

¶24

and the said decision has been communicated to the Directorate of Minority Welfare. It has been further asserted that the Directorate of Minority Welfare communicated its proposal for absorption of the petitioner against the post of Accountant in the Minority Welfare Department by the letter no. F.1(475)/MW/ ESTT/P-1/ 12/3499-500 dated 21.11.2012. In response to the said letter dated 21.11.2012, the Chief Executive Officer, the Board of Wakf wrote to the Directorate of Minority Welfare that the Tripura Board of Wakf is agreeable to the proposal for absorption of the petitioner permanently in the Minority Welfare Department. Thereafter, the petitioner was making representation for absorption, but nothing positive has yielded as yet. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court for direction, as stated above.

¶25

3. From paragraph 12 of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner can be absorbed either in the Directorate of Minority Welfare.

¶26

4. Having heard Mr. Sinha, learned counsel as well as Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate, this court is of the view that it is in the fitness of things the respondents no. 1,2 and 3 shall be directed to take decision in respect of absorption of the petitioner within 6(six) weeks from the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner at the earliest. Accordingly, it is directed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 861 of 2017

¶28

¶29

decision of those respondents in this regard, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this court again.

¶30

5. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Saikat

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 861 of 2017

Abdul Haque v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Haque 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khagendra Ch. Deb Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Rajmohan Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Rakhal Ch. Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tapasi Ghosh Saha Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Ruma Gan Bardhan Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Mallika Datta Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.