Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 79 (TRI)

Umesh Mishra v. National Institute of Technology

2022-02-16

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT Indrajit Mahanty; CJ. - Heard learned counsel Mr. Sankar Lodh appearing for the appellant and learned CGC Mr. Biswanath Majumder as well as learned counsel Mr. S. Mahajan appearing on behalf of the respondents-National Institute of Technology (NIT, for short). 2. The present writ appeal has come to be filed seeking to challenge the judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.517 of 2014 on 28.02.2018. 3. Essentially two contentions were raised before the Hon'ble Single Judge. The first relating to the claim of the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Professor in the NIT, Agartala for entitlement of two HRAs in terms of the notification dated 24.09.2003 (Annexure-2). In this regard, the Hon'ble Single Judge has dealt with this issue in paragraphs- 26 and 27. Clearly the said notification as found by the Hon'ble Single Judge has no applicability to the case of the petitioner on facts. The said notification dealt with persons who are otherwise appointed outside the Northeast and are transferred to the Northeast and then the benefit of two HRAs under the conditions stipulated therein would arise. In the case at hand, there is no doubt that the petitioner, an appellant herein, was substantially appointed to NIT, Agartala. Consequently, there is no question of acceding to his demand for two HRAs. A further contention in support of the aforesaid claim of double HRA is based on an alleged precedent set in the case of Professor P.K. Bose, the former Director of NIT, Agartala. We are of the considered view that the Hon'ble Single Judge has correctly noted the principle that this Court is constrained to say that payment to the former Director could not create a precedent which can be relied upon for the reason that Professor Bose had never been appointed on regular basis to the NIT, Agartala, as distinct from the petitioner who is holding a substantial post at the same institution. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that insofar as the claim of the petitioner for regularizing the period, i.e. 11.07.2013 to 19.08.2013 is concerned, he submits that the petitioner-appellant had applied to the IIT, Delhi for Associateship after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities of NIT, Agartala and after his selection he communicated under Annexures-17, 18 and 19 to the authorities of NIT, Agartala seeking their permission. But under communication of letter dated 22.03.2013 under Annexure-20 the application of the appellant was categorically turned down with the following observation: 'Dr. Umesh Mishra, Professor.......is hereby informed that his prayer for deputation for a period of 3(three) months at IIT Delhi......has been considered by the Competent Authority but could not be exceeded to.' 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the understanding of his client was that the period of three months could not be exceeded for which deputation has been sought for. We are afraid such an understanding is not based on proper appreciation of facts. Although the term 'exceeded' has been noted in the said communication, the words 'could not be' precede the term 'exceeded' which can only mean that the request of the petitioner was turned down. Therefore, it appears that the appellant proceeded to go without the permission of the competent authority and participate in the Associateship during the period as noted hereinabove. We are of the clear and considered view that we agree with the conclusions reached by the Hon'ble Single Judge in this matter since the appellant had proceeded to leave the institution without necessary sanction and on the face of a specific order refusing to accede to the request made by the appellant for deputation. In any event, we find from the order impugned that the Hon'ble Single Judge concluded his judgment by the following: '31. Before parting with the records, it is observed that if the petitioner is still entitled to the pay and allowances for any part of the Associateship except that period of absence from 11.07.2013 to 19.08.2013 which may be regularized by the respondents from the credited leave on the prayer of the petitioner, the pay and allowances of such period shall be released to the petitioner within 30 days from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order to the respondent No.2 or the Registrar, NIT, Agartala.' 6. Therefore, we find no merit in the present appeal and accordingly, affirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge and direct dismissal of the present writ appeal. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.