Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 489 (TRI)

Swapan Barman v. State of Tripura

2015-07-07

S.TALAPATRA

body2015
ORDER : Heard Mr. Somik Deb with Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The petitioners have failed to take steps on the respondents No. 4 and 5 despite numerous opportunities afforded to them and hence no order can be passed by this court, affecting their rights. 2. It appears that the petitioners were appointed as the workers on contractual basis @ Rs.2,145 per month by the Managing Director, Tripura Forest Development and Plantation Corporation Ltd. (TFDPC Ltd.). 3. The respondent No.2, the Managing Director of TFDPC Ltd. issued one advertisement on 16.05.2007. The said advertisement reads as under : “Applications are invited for 25 (twenty five) Machine Operators in TFDPC Ltd. having qualification on the following trades from recognized ITI passed on the following trades (1) Mechanic (2) Carpenters (3) Electrician, Age Between 18 to 37 years, 5 years relaxation for SC/ST candidates. The engagement will be on purely contract basis @ Rs.2,145/- per month initially for one year. The candidates should submit their applications with all relevant testimonials to the undersigned on or before 28.05.2007.” 4. The petitioners have challenged the appointments of the respondents no. 4 and 5 for not having the requisite qualification as reflected by the said advertisement dated 16.05.2007. That challenge cannot be examined for non-prosecution of the petitioners in respect of service of the notice on the respondents No. 4 and 5. That apart, the challenge suffers from unexplained latches. The petitioners have thrown further to the advertisement dated 25.03.2011, which was issued for filling up the vacant posts in the TFDPC Ltd. including Project Guard and Peon. According to the petitioners, without regularising their services such drive for regular appointments in the Corporation is bound to be violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are working in the TFDPC Ltd. as the workers purely on contractual basis. From AnnexureP/3 collectively to the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioners raised their protests against the recruitment of some persons as the Machine Operators in the Corporation’s Rubber Wood Factory at Anandanagar. Those protests were raised on various dates from 21.12.2010 to 06.01.2011. 6. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. Govt. From AnnexureP/3 collectively to the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioners raised their protests against the recruitment of some persons as the Machine Operators in the Corporation’s Rubber Wood Factory at Anandanagar. Those protests were raised on various dates from 21.12.2010 to 06.01.2011. 6. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the state has submitted that the petitioners did not take part in the selection process and they have challenged the advertisement dated 25.03.2011 after the selection and appointments have been made. The appointees are not impleaded in this proceeding. Thus the petition is bound to fall through. 7. This court does not find any reason to interfere with the advertisement dated 25.03.2011, AnnexureP/2 to the writ petition. As such, the prayer for quashing the advertisement dated 25.03.2011 stands rejected. 8. The law is by now well settled. The contractual workers do not have any indefeasible right to claim regularisation. But, definitely their plight cannot be left unnoticed. The state has certain responsibility to give a dignified livelihood to the class of workers who are ensnared in a pitiable wage-situation without a better tomorrow. It has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioners were working as the ‘Workers’ under the Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Limited. It appears from the representations (Annexure-P/3 collectively to the writ petition) that some of the petitioners are even working as the factory workers since 1992. 9. Having regard to that aspect of the matter, the respondents are directed to frame a scheme within their resources to regularise the petitioners in a phased manner. As corollary to this observation, the Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Limited, the respondent No.2 is directed to explore the most suitable scheme and to notify that scheme by 31.03.2016. Thereafter, in terms of that scheme the petitioners shall be considered for their regularisation. 10. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.