TRIPURA GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FEDERATION AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.
LAWS(GAU)-1994-6-28
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 20,1994

Tripura Government Employees Federation And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
State of Tripura and Ors. Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

C.N.S. OFFICERS GUILD (REGD.) VS. CHAIRMAN, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-221] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.)THIS Miscellaneous Case No. 251/94 (in Civil Rule No. 58/94 of Agartala Bench) has come before a Division Bench of this Court in pursuance of an order passed on February 11, 1994 by a learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 58/1994 (of Agartala Bench) referring the case before the Division Bench as according to the learned Single Judge the case raised questions of law of general importance insofar as Employees' Associations are concerned.
(2.)THE brief controversy in the present case centers round the question as to whether the office bearers of the employees' Associations mentioned in Annexure - 'I' to the writ petition (Civil Rule No. 58/94) are entitled to the benefit of the Government policy as has been issued in form of a press note, vide Annexure - F to the Misc. Application (p. 192) to the effect that three office -bearers at State level, viz., President, Secretary and Treasurer, and two office -bearers, viz., President and Secretary of each recognised Association and its constituent unit (sub -divisional level) shall be exempted from general transfer, or not. According to the petitioners in the writ petition, all those office -bearers of the 64 Associations mentioned in Annexure I to the writ petition are entitled to tile aforesaid benefit and that the State Government is not extending these benefits to the office -bearers of the aforesaid 64 employees' Associations and the action of the State Government, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, was mala fide.
In these cases, we have heard Mr. A. Roy, counsel appearing for the petitioners, in Civil Rule No. 58/94 (also in Misc. Case No. 251/94) and for the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 117/94 (arising out of Civil Rule No. 396/94 of Agartala Bench) and Mr. A.M. Lodh, counsel appearing for the appellant in the connected Writ Appeal (T) No. 574/94 (arising out of Civil Rule No. 305/1994 of Agartala Bench) as the questions of law arising in all these three connected cases are similar. We have heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, Advocate -General, State of Tripura, in all aforesaid three cases on behalf of the State -Respondent. Counsel for the parties have made statements that all these cases may be finally heard together.

(3.)MR . A. Chakraborty, Advocate - General, State of Tripura, has at the very outset made a statement that the Government policy in the press note vide Annexure - F to the Misc. Application, as referred to above, is still operative and is being given effect to by the State Government in so far as the transfer of the State employees is concerned. It has however been contended that the aforesaid benefit has only been extended to the Associations which have been recognised by the State Government and its constituent units at the sub -divisional level. As far as the 64 Associations mentioned in Annexure - 'I' to the writ petition in Civil Rule No. 58/94 (of Agartala Bench) as referred to above, it has been contended that at no point of time the State Government has given recognition to the 64 Associations and therefore the office bearers of these Associations who are now claiming the benefit of the Government policy as has been found in the press note vide Annexure F to the Misc. Application, are not entitled to the same.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.