HARADHAN DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the Staterespondents.

(2.) THE grievance of the writ petitioner as projected falls within a narrow campus.

(3.) THE respondents by filing a composite counter -affidavit did not dispute the contention of the petitioner that "the concerned Head of Office disinclined to accept the joining report of the petitioner on the ground that there is no primary unit attached to the said Barpathari Higher Secondary School. The primary school which sat in the morning in the complex of the Barpathari Higher Secondary School is a separate institution, having separate establishment". In reply thereo, the respondents stated that "But the answering respondents submits that the period from 06.05.2000 (the date of release of the petitioner) to 08.08.2000 the petitioner never informed the respondents about his problems or where he was. It was beyond knowledge of the answering respondents that the petitioner did not join in his place of posting, where he transferred to. As such the period when the petitioner was traceless can only be adjusted from the admissible leave etc. However after the Hon'ble Courts order dated 16.12.2002 the answering respondents paid the salary for the period 04.05.2000 to 17.10.2000 provisionally, though he was not entitled in accordance with law".