CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1997) 03 SC CK 0178

State of Tripura vs Arati Bala Sarkar (Smt) and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 14 March 1997 · Citation: (1997) 10 JT 660 : (1997) 5 SCC 393 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 1228

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Saghir Ahmad, J · S. C. Agrawal, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 1947 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 344 words

S.C. Agrawal, J.—Special leave granted.

2.

Respondent 1, even though duly served, has not chosen to appear.

3.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Agartala Bench, Agartala dated 5-7-1996 in civil Rule No. 88 of 1992 filed by Respondent 1. The husband of Respondent 1, Prafulla Chandra Sarkar, was a Labour Sardar in the M.B. Tilla, FCI Godown. It appears that while travelling from Gaya to Calcutta he fell down from the train and he has not been seen thereafter. In the writ petition Respondent 1 sought the relief for making inquiry into the circumstances about the disappearance of her husband and the High Court while disposing of the said writ petition has given the following direction :

Accordingly, we close this writ application but under the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the authority to give some suitable employment or lump sum monetary compensation to this poor lady so that she may live a decent life. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this letter. We hope and trust that the authority will show sympathy to this poor lady.

4.

Having regard to the fact that the husband of Respondent 1 was not even an employee of the State Government and the only grievance with which Respondent 1 came to the High Court was with regard to the inquiry into the circumstances in which he had disappeared while travelling from Gaya to Calcutta, we are unable to appreciate how the High Court could give the direction to give suitable employment or lump sum monetary compensation to Respondent 1. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution it is not for the High Court to distribute benediction merely because Respondent 1, who has moved the Court, is undergoing hardship. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the aforesaid direction given by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned direction given by the High Court is set aside No costs.