SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Tri) 126

S. TALAPATRA
Subhash Roy – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Ms. S. Nag, Advocate, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. Having noticed the common question that wades through both the writ petitions being WP(C)No.536 of 2021 [Subhash Roy v. State of Tripura & 3 Ors.] and WP(C)537 of 2021 [Jagabandhu Debnath v. State of Tripura & 3 Ors.] those are combined for disposal by a common judgment.

2. The writ petitioners have urged for Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize their service for their completion of ten years of service by interfering with the decision of the Finance Department contained in the communication dated 02.08.2021 [Annexure-5 to the writ petitions]. There is hardly any difference in facts. Both the petitioners did join as DRW Orderly in the Legal Remembrancer's establishment on 20.12.2007. Thereafter, they have been uninterruptedly serving the respondents.

3. On 02.08.2021 by filing a representation [Annexure-4 to the writ petitions] the petitioners had urged for their regularization against the vacant posts of Orderly. It is apparent that on 19.02.2017 they had completed ten years of service. While scrutinizing the records, it is noticed that the Law Department, Government of Tripura took steps for their regularization and for that purpose, they had referred the mat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top