Sri Mintu Das v. The State of Tripura and 2 Others
Court: High Court of Tripura
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Tripura judgment dated 2024-12-07. Sri Mintu Das v. The State of Tripura and 2 Others. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) No. 703 of 2024 Sri Mintu Das, son of Late Mahadeb Das, resident of South Ramnagar, near Veterinary Hospital, Agartala-799001, P. S. West Agartala, Dist. - West Tripura. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Tripura, represented by Secretary, Govt. of Tripura, General Administration, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala-799010, P. S. New Capital Complex, Dist. - West Tripura. 2. Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala-799010, P. S. New Capital Complex, Dist. - West Tripura. 3. The Director, Directorate Secondary Education, Siksha Bhavan, Office Lane, Agartala-799001, P. S. West Agartala, Dist. -West Tripura. …. Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Datta, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 07/12/2024 Heard Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.
Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents- State. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “(a) Admit this Writ Petition; (b) Issue notice upon the respondents; (c) Call for the records relevant to the subject matter; (d) Issue Writ directing the Respondents and each of them to pay the arrears of subsistence allowance of the Petitioner as per provisions of F. R. 53(1)(ii)(a)(i); and (e) also pass any other order or orders as Your Honour may seem fit and proper regarding the facts and circumstances of the case. ” When the matter came up before this Court on 19. 11. 2024, this Court had requested the State-respondents to seek instructions about granting of subsistence allowance @ 75% of the salary with effect from the date of suspension order. Today when the matter has come up before this Court, Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl.
GA has submitted that at present the petitioner has been receiving 75% of the salary considering his actual basic salary at Rs. 18,000/-per month. The claim of the petitioner is that his basic salary was Rs. 21,705/- per month, but, according to the State-respondents it was actually the gross salary of the petitioner. At this juncture, Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that at present the petitioner has been receiving 75% of the basic salary at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- however, initially the petitioner was not granted 75% of his basic salary considering the same at Rs. 18,000/- per month. Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA has submitted that if there is any discrepancy in the subsistence allowance initially that will be regularized at the time of completion of the departmental proceeding and regularization of the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid admitted facts and submissions, Mr.
Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed as not pressed. JUDGE Snigdha Digitally signed SAIKA by SAIKAT KAR Date: 2024. 12. 07 T KAR 15:05:54 +05'30'
Source: High Court of Tripura. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.