Arjun Sil vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

Heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. TD Majumder, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

The grievance of the petitioner falls within a very short compass. The petitioner completed his Ph.D.in Civil and Earthquake Engineering on study leave. Before going for such leave, the petitioner executed one bond undertaking that in the event of his failure in resuming his duties or resigning or retiring from service or otherwise quitting service after the expiry or the termination of period of leave, a sum of Rs. 4 lakh with interest has to be paid to the government by the petitioner. It is admitted further that the petitioner without resuming the duty in the Rural Development Department, where he was working had joined in the new employment under the National Institute of Technology, Silchar as a faculty. The petitioner for purpose of taking the benefit of past service requested the Rural Development Department to release all his service records so that those can be submitted in the said NIT. It is to be noted that before that the petitioner had resigned from his post and the resignation was indisputedly accepted by the State government and the petitioner has already joined in the new organization i.e. NIT, Silchar on 27.12.2012.

The controversy which has been projected in this writ petition is that the State government by the communication dated 19.01.2007 has requested the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lakh to the District Magistrate and Collector, Dhalai under whose control the petitioner was lastly posted with intimation to the Rural Development Department. The petitioner has challenged that action as reflected in the communication dated 19.01.2007. The petitioner has further urged for directing the respondents to transmit his service record either to him or to the NIT, Silchar inasmuch as the State government by the communication dated 19.01.2007 has clearly stated that unless the said demand is satisfied by the petitioner, no further action will be taken.

Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that for the higher qualification as acquired by the petitioner, the public interest would be served and as such under Rule 56, sub rule 3 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave Rules) 1986, the State government has the power to waive such recovery. Sub rule 3 of Rule 56 provides as under:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the Government may if it is necessary or expedient to do so, either in the public interest or, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case or class of cases, by order, waive or reduce the amount required to be refunded under sub-rule (1) by the Government servant concerned or class of Government servants."

Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel has further submitted that subject to the decision that may be taken on that aspect of the matter, the respondents may be directed to handover the service records to the petitioner for purpose of submitting those in the NIT where the petitioner is now working.

Mr. Majumder, learned GA has clearly submitted that the State has not acted in violation of any law or any statutory direction rather the State has taken the action in conformity to the statutory rules. The bond was obtained from the petitioner to have the amount [as pre-determined] recovered in the eventuality of his not resuming the duties after acquiring the higher qualification. Now, the petitioner cannot alter the position when he is liable to refund the said amount against the leave salary. Mr. Majumder, learned GA has further submitted that unless the clearance is available, the State has every right to take any further action to recover the said amount to the extent of Rs. 4(four) lacs.

Having regard to all these aspects, this court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interfering with the decision contained in the communication dated 19.01.2017.

Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file the appropriate prayer to avail the benefit as provided by sub rule 3 of Rule 56 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986. If such prayer is made by the petitioner, the competent authority in the Rural Development Department shall decide such prayer, as expeditiously as possible. It is expected that such decision will be taken within 15(fifteen) days from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is made clear that only after this issue is decided or settled, the petitioner will have the right to get return of his service records, as claimed by him.

There shall be no order as to costs.