Tripura High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J. dismissed a petition filed for issuing writ of mandamus calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be made regular in the post of Scientific Assistant with all consequential service benefit.

Petitioner was first engaged on contract basis w.e.f. 30-10-2003 with the conditions that the authority may cancel the engagement letter at any point of time without any reason and without any prior notice before expiry of contract period. The petitioner completed 10 years of service on 07-11-2013. After completion of 10 years of his contract service, he prayed for regularization of his service in the post of Scientific Officer. The case of the petitioner was not considered, which prompted him to approach this court by filing the present petition.

The Court from the submissions of counsel appearing for the State-respondents noted that Department concurred to the proposal of Urban Development Department for creation of 1(one) post of Scientific Assistant in Kumarghat Municipal Council, subject to obtaining concurrence of the Finance Department. Further a note dated 21-12-2017 mentioned that “Finance Department concurs with the proposal of the Department for creation of 1(one) post of “Scientific Assistant” to accommodate one Sri Nipu Roy who was appointed on 31-10-2003 in Kumarghat Municipal Council subject to approval of Council of Ministers.” But, till today the Government has not taken any decision in regard to the creation of the said post.

The Court further held that ‘it is not within the domain of this Court to direct the State- Government to create any post. It is absolutely within the domain of the State policy.”

The petition was dismissed finding no merits however the Court remarked that since the petitioner has been rendering his valuable service, liberty is given to him to file a representation before the appropriate authority to consider the decision of the said Note dated 21-12-2017 since it is evident that service of one Binay Bhusan Paul who was engaged under the same engagement letter dated 10-11-2003 had been regularized w.e.f. 22-11-2011.

[Nipu Roy v. State of Tripura, 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 485, decided on 19-07-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr C.S.Sinha, Advocate, for the Petitioner(s);

Mr P.K.Dhar, Sr. G.A., Mr A. Dey, Advocates, for the Respondent(s).

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Tripura High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: S. Talpatra, J. disposed of the petition holding that the discretion lies with the respondents to provide job for livelihood.

Petitioners were engaged as the Daily Rated Worker (DRW) under respondent 2, which is admittedly a Society for promotion of self-employment activities. They have contended that they have completed ten years of service as DRWs and as such, they should be considered for regularization in terms of the policy declared by the State by the memorandum dated 01-09-2008.

Petitioners had challenged the decision contained in the communication dated 24-08-2020 whereby one agency called DREAMZ Services had been given the contract for the works catalogued therein under the terms and conditions that have been agreed upon by SWAVALAMBAN and the said DREAMZ Service. Its tenure was one year, hence, that is assumed to be not in vogue.

They had urged to issue direction in the form of mandamus upon the respondents to quash the NIQ dated 03-07-2020 issued by the Nodal Officer, SWAVALAMBAN. In terms of the earlier note in terms of NIQ, one agency for services had been engaged. The said agency was engaged by a formal letter dated 24-08-2020 which had been sought to be interfered with.

Court opined that the petitioner have failed to substantiate that they were working as the Daily Rated Worker/Contingent Workers in the Government departments for which the memorandum dated 01-09-2008 and the subsequent memorandum dated 21-01-2009 were framed.

Petitioners could not produce the term of their engagements and as such does not have any indefeasible right to continue in such capacity.

But a Society which has been working for the benefit of the people, particularly for promotion of self-employment activities is not expected to disengage the petitioners in the manner they have done so. They should have taken a sincere effort but they have not done so. It was not a matter of compassion, it was completely a matter of approach how to deal with new situation, particularly when the petitioners have worked in their Society for more than ten years.

Court held that it cannot intervene in such matter. Therefore, the respondents were asked to consider the aspect so that the petitioners may get some engagement for livelihood, even through the outsourcing agency which had been providing several services in the Society. The respondents were allowed to be at their discretion to consider whether the petitioners can be provided job so that they can live, as they do not have any other livelihood. Such consideration was made expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of.[Harmila Uchai v. State of Tripura, 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 117, decided on 23-02-2022]

For Petitioner(s): Ms A. Debbarma

For respondent(s): Mr D. Bhattacharya, G.A. Mr S. Saha

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Patna High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Prabhat Kumar Jha, J. dismissed a civil writ petition claiming employment in lieu of acquisition of land on the ground that there was no policy of the Indian Railways for the same.

The instant petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant appointment to the petitioner in Group-C or Group-D post in the East Central Railway as per her educational qualification since her land had been acquired for construction of Neura Daniyama rail line.

The Court noted that petitioner was granted a compensation of Rs 5,26,687.92 after acquisition of her land. She never raised any objection or filed any petition before the concerned authority for providing her a job. Also, she had moved this court after long delay of more than ten years from the date of acquisition of her land without any plausible explanation. 

Reliance was placed on the judgment of Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 where it was held that petitioner has no fundamental right to claim job in lieu of acquisition of his land for the purpose of completion of project, besides compensation for acquisition of the land. Admittedly, there was no policy for providing employment to the landlord whose lands had been acquired for completion of the aforesaid rail line project. In view thereof, it was held that the petitioner could not claim employment in lieu of acquisition of her land as a matter of right.[Neera Devi v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Pat 2328, decided on 05-12-2018]

Chhattisgarh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Goutam Bhaduri, J. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the lower court regarding a divorce suit filed by the appellant/husband on the ground that the respondent/wife deserted him.

In the present case, it has been stated that, after the marriage of appellant and respondent, the respondent got an opportunity of a job and was selected as an Assistant Professor in the Education Department and she had to join her posting somewhere else other than her place of matrimonial home. Further, the husband suggested the wife not to join her place of posting, but she did not hear the advice and however supported by her family members and without the consent eventually, she joined her job at other place. It was pleaded for this very reason, that the wife deserted the husband, therefore, the marriage be annulled by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act.

“Husband was completely depending as a parasite on his mother and father, therefore, despite the fact that the husband was agreed for his wife to join the job, he could not oppose.”

The Court below found no ground to hold that the wife had deserted the husband, therefore, dismissed the petition, which lead for the instant appeal.

The High Court on considering the circumstances and submissions of the present appeal, concluded its decision while stating that,

“When the girl is well educated, it is not expected that she would be kept in a boundary of matrimonial obligation only in confinement. It is for the husband and wife to balance the marital ties, which they are duly bound to do for each other”.

The Court while referring to the Supreme Court decision in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1676, in which it was observed that “wishes of the husband to throw a choice to the wife to hear to his wishes to make a choice” as has happened in this case will slaughter her core identity. Therefore, the husband and wife are to be equally treated and if the wife opted to join the job at different place, she cannot be otherwise forced at the behest of the husband or his family members to remain at her matrimonial home alone.

Thus, the grounds stated by the appellant in regard to desertion cannot be entertained as the job against the wishes of the husband does not justify the claim that the wife has deserted and except that no ground of mental cruelty has been pleaded or evidence has been adduced. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. [Hemant Parasar v. Kamini Parasar,2018 SCC OnLine Chh 663, order dated 26-11-2018]