logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 THC 207 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Tripura
Case No : W.A. No. 30 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Parties : Bijoy Kanti Ghosh & Another Versus The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Government of Tripura & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: Sudipta Sekhar Debnath, Debarun Singh Kunwar, Advocates. For the Respondent: Karnajit De, Additional Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 06-05-2026
Head Note :-
Comparartive Citation:
2026 THC 571,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Office order dt. 25.11.1998

2. Catch Words:
- limitation
- laches
- delay
- regularisation
- cause of action

3. Summary:
The appellants, initially appointed as ad‑hoc Fishery Officers in 1997 and later regularised by an Office order on 25‑11‑1998, filed a writ petition seeking to treat their service as regular from the ad‑hoc appointment date. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on grounds of laches and delay, holding that the cause of action arose on the date of the regularising order. The appellants argued that the cause of action accrued only upon knowledge of a 2015 Supreme Court judgment, but the Court noted that the relevant legal principle was settled by a 1990 Supreme Court decision, rendering the claim hopelessly belated. The appellate court found no error in the Single Judge’s reasoning and upheld the dismissal.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. Heard counsel for the appellants and Addl. G.A. for the respondents.

2. The appellants have challenged in this Writ Appeal the judgment dt. 22.09.2025 in WP(C)No.182 of 2025 of the Learned Single Judge dismissing the said Writ Petition on the ground of laches and delay.

3. Though the appellants were appointed temporarily on ad-hoc basis as Fishery Officers on 11.03.1997, later, on 25.11.1998 by another Office order issued by the Director of Fisheries they were appointed to the same post on regular basis in the prescribed pay scale with other relevance. They claimed in the Writ Petition that their services should be treated as regular from the date of their initial appointment on ad-hoc basis.

4. Having been unsuccessful in making a representation for the first time on 19.11.2018 to 2nd respondent, on the basis of the judgment of this Court dt. 10.08.2015 in W.A.No.67 of 2014, the appellants had approached this Court by the said Writ Petition.

5. The Learned Single Judge, however, held that the Office order dt. 25.11.1998 did not make any specific mention that the effect of regularization of their services was from 25.11.1998 and so cause of action had accrued upon the appellants on that date. He held that it is not a case of continuing wrong or continuous cause of action and that they had approached the Court after 25 years therefrom.

6. Though counsel for the appellants sought to contend that the cause of action is deemed to have accrued only from the date of knowledge of the judgment in W.A.No.67 of 2014, we may point out that the basis for the claim of the petitioner is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others1. The Law had been settled by the said judgment in 1990 itself and so the claim made in 2018 by the appellants is hopelessly belated and the Learned Single Judge, therefore, had rightly dismissed the Writ Petition and denied the relief claimed by them.

7. Therefore, we find no error in the judgment of the Learned Single Judge warranting interference in the Writ Appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal