State Of Tripura vs Rina Deb & Ors

S. Datta Purkayastha, J

Heard Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

Mrs. Chakraborty, learned counsel has sought for deletion of the name of the State of Tripura from the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that there is no cause of action against the State of Tripura and, moreover, no relief has been sought against the State. Therefore, they are not a necessary party in this case.

Mr. Arjun Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-O.P. submits that he has relied on two memorandums dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and 21.01.2009 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) issued by the State Government in Finance Department, and therefore, the presence of the State of Tripura in the writ proceeding may be helpful for deciding the case.

Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel submits that originally the writ petitioner-O.P. was an employee as PTW of the Power Department, Government of Tripura and State was her employer during that period.

Considered the submission of both sides.

It appears that the basic claim of the writ petitioner-O.P. is against TSECL, as the writ petitioner-O.P., was an employee of TSECL. However, the writ petitioner-O.P. is relying on certain notifications issued by the State of Tripura in Finance Department, to support her claim. Therefore, though the relief sought for by writ petitioner-O.P. is basically against TSECL, but presence of the applicant may be of assistance to the Court in deciding the issue.

Therefore, the petition for striking out the name of the applicant-State of Tripura is rejected.

Interim application, is accordingly, disposed of.