Smt. Shikha Sarkar vs The State of Tripura and 2 Others Advocate - GOVT. ADVOCATE — WP(C)/293/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: TRHC010005302026

Filing Number

WP(C)/379/2026

Filing Date

25-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/293/2026

Registration Date

29-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WRIT PETITION RELATING TO SERVICE MATTER ( 2 )

Sub-Category

Dismissal, Removal, Termination From Service ( 3 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Smt. Shikha Sarkar

    Adv. MR DILIP KUMAR DAS CHAWDHURY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Tripura and 2 Others Advocate - GOVT. ADVOCATE

  2. 2.The Director of Health Services,

  3. 3.The Sub-Divisional Medical Officer,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswajit PalitView PDF

    Case Summary: WP(C) No.293 of 2026 The High Court of Tripura dismissed Smt. Shikha Sarkar's petition challenging her dismissal from service as a Sweeping and Cleaning Assistant in 2020 on grounds of negligence of duty without opportunity to be heard. The court found the petition devoid of merit due to: (1) lack of documentary evidence establishing her employment; (2) delay and laches—no action taken between 2020-2026 discharge; and (3) petitioner's counsel failed to satisfy the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    For Motion

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/293/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP(C) No.293 of 2026 The High Court of Tripura dismissed Smt. Shikha Sarkar's petition challenging her dismissal from service as a Sweeping and Cleaning Assistant in 2020 on grounds of negligence of duty without opportunity to be heard. The court found the petition devoid of merit due to: (1) lack of documentary evidence establishing her employment; (2) delay and laches—no action taken between 2020-2026 discharge; and (3) petitioner's counsel failed to satisfy the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case