AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. D Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has been shown the additional affidavit filed by Mr. N. Darlong, the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Finance Department in Cont. Cas (C) No.154 of 2019(D/O) in the form of a supplementary affidavit. In the said supplementary affidavit, it has been categorically stated that the respondents of the writ petition have given the relief to the petitioner in terms of the memorandum dated 26.08.2019 which has been quoted in the final order passed in the said contempt case. For purpose of reference, the relevant part of the statement as referred above is extracted hereunder:
"That in this regard the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura has issued memorandum dated 26th August, 2019. If paragraph 2 and 3 of the said memorandum dated 26th August, 2019 is applied in the case of the Petitioner, the same will remove the anomaly and for revision of pension and other retiral benefits the Petitioner has to approach his appointing authority. The said memorandum dated 26th August, 2019 is annexed as Annexure-R/1 at page 43. The paragraph 2 and 3 of the memorandum dated 26th August, 2019 will remove the anomaly and the same may be applied in the case of the Petitioner. For revision of pension and other retiral benefits the Petitioner may approach his appointing authority."
Notwithstanding such solemn statement made in the said proceeding, the petitioner has not received any benefit. Para-5 of the said memorandum dated 26.08.2019 has been insisted by the respondents to deny the petitioner the benefits for which the writ petition was filed. The contempt case was closed on the basis of the said statement, as recorded above. It is really irreconcilable how such stand to deny the benefits to the petitioner can be taken by the state government. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has, in this perspective, sought some accommodation from this court to come out with a clarification.
List this matter on 31.07.2020.
It is made absolutely clear that if it is found that the state government has taken a different stand other than what was taken in the earlier contempt proceeding, a fresh contempt proceeding will be initiated on the court's own motion.