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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 58

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Shri Samaresh Baidya – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura and 4 others – Respondent
WP(C) 281 / 2025



HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) No. 281 of 2025 Shri Samaresh Baidya, S/O Lt. Mantu Kumar Baidya, Of Dhaleshwar, Road No.6, P.S. East Agartala, P.O. Dhaleshwar, Agartala, Tripura (W), PIN -799007.

---- Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. The State of Tripura, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, Agartala, Tripura, PIN -799010.

2. The Director, Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, Agartala, Tripura (W), PIN -799001.

3. The Director, Directorate of Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Paradise Chowmuhani, Agartala, Tripura (W), PIN -799001.

4. The Deputy Director of Horticulture, Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Of Kumarghat, P.O. Kumarghat, Unakoti District, PIN -799264.

5. The Under Secretary, Government of Tripura, Department of Agriculture & Farmer’s Welfare, Civil Secretariat, Agartala, PIN-799010.

---- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samar Das, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. GA.

Date of hearing : 16.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.01.2026 Whether fit for reporting : No HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Judgment & Order

16.01.2026 Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Samar Das, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Learned Addl. GA Mr. M Debbarma, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. At the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of the Court that the petitioner joined as a Surveyor under the department of Agriculture on 03.09.1997 and on consideration of his sincere service he was promoted to the post of Special Officer (Survey) (Group-B, Non- Gazetted) on 27.08.2013 by the respondents. After that in pursuance of a transfer order dated 09.09.2014 he was released from his place of posting on 20.07.2015 and joined in his new place of posting at Kumarghat on 31.07.2015.

3. On 26.06.2016 the petitioner proceeded on leave due to the serious illness of his wife. Thereafter, he tried to resume his duty but he was not allowed to join by the respondents at his place of posting. After that on 09.01.2019 respondent No.4 issued a letter regarding his unauthorized absence without any prior information. After that the petitioner reported for his duty on 13.09.2019 and submitted his joining letter but the same was not accepted by the department.

4. Thereafter, on 03.10.2020 the petitioner issued statutory notice upon the Director, Department of Agriculture, under Section 80 of CPC but no response was given. Lastly, being denied from joining, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 01.09.2021. Learned Counsel further submitted that on 22.07.2022 the petitioner again submitted reminder letter for accepting his resignation, but no response was given. Thereafter, again on 17.01.2023 he urged for acceptance of his resignation w.e.f. 01.09.2021 which was later on accepted on 18.01.2023 without settlement of any pensionary and other retiral benefits.

5. After that, the petitioner submitted representation to the Department for releasing his pensionary and other benefits and on 03.10.2023 the respondents directed him to submit his application for extra ordinary leave w.e.f. 26.06.2016 to 31.08.2021 for finalization of his service and financial benefits. Accordingly, he submitted the same but no step was taken by the respondent Department.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred one writ petition which was disposed of 30.11.2024 directing the respondents to consider his case within 3(three) months. The respondents did not take any action and so a contempt petition was filed. The respondents issued a memo on 08.04.2025 for forfeiting his entire past service and denying pensionary benefits. It was further submitted that the petitioner has rendered service for 24 years and 7 months but as the respondents failed to provide him the pensionary and other benefits so the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court again seeking reliefs.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Das,

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 Back to top