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

2023 Supreme(Tri) 7

T. AMARNATH GOUD
Sudipta Paul – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Samar Das, Advocate, D. Bhattacharya, Advocate, Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, Advocate

Table of Content
1. court emphasizes need for appointment consideration. (Para 1 , 6)
2. petitioner seeks compassionate job appointment. (Para 2 , 4)
3. court orders consideration for compassionate appointment. (Para 3 , 7)
4. arguments on hardship and eligibility presented. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate and Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a direction to the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme.

3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :

'(a) Admit this petition;

(b) Call for records;

(c) Issue notice upon the respondents;

(iv) After hearing the parties issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents and each of them to provide a job under die-in-harness to the petitioner on the death of his father namely late Kartik Ch. Paul ex-chairman under the respondents.'

4. Brief facts leading to this case are that the son of the deceased employee

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