The petitioner was not entitled to further leave, as per the terms and conditions of the engagement. Such an opinion was made by The Hon’ble High Court of Tripura through the bench led by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra in the matter of Debjani Deb Sarkar Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors. [WP(C) No. 102 of 2021].
The facts of the case were associated with the petitioner who was working under State Health and Family Welfare Society, Tripura as a Computer Assistant on a contractual basis. The petitioner was appointed for 11 months at the beginning and such was renewed from time to time and such was repeated again through a memorandum to continue the work. The petitioner’s service was terminated before the completion of the tenure mentioned in the said impugned memorandum. Thereby, the said termination was challenged.
The counsel representing the petitioner stated that if the veil was lifted from the facts that resulted in the issuance of the said impugned memorandum then it would be clear that the petitioner was transferred by an order dated 15.01.2019. It appeared that failed to join the new place of transfer and continued her work from the previously posted place and according to the petitioner, she was directed to do so. A showcase was issued by the Mission Director NHM, Government of Tripura wherein the petitioner was asked to reply in three days stating why disciplinary action should not be taken against her since she violated office order. In reply, she had stated that she was orally told to work in the previous posting place.
After the reply was submitted, she was asked to transfer to the new place but upon joining the petitioner took four days of casual leave due to ‘family affairs’ but after the end of the leave, she did not join and again applied for a leave of about 1 month. The petitioner was not entitled to any further leave and was entitled to a casual leave of 12 days. Still, she was unauthorizedly absent from her work.
Considering all the facts, The Hon’ble Court stated that “Ms. Chakma (Saha), learned counsel has stated that the action of the respondent is not tainted by mala fide. Hence, this court does not find any infirmity in the order of termination. The said order of termination has been issued within the terms of the contract of engagement. No other premise subsists which may persuade this court to interfere with the order of termination. As consequence, this writ petition stands dismissed.”
Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu