JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. All these petitions being WP(C) 130 of 2016 [Sri Narayan Sutradhar vs. The State of Tripura and another], WP(C) 153 of 2016 [Sri Rabindra Sutradhar vs. The State of Tripura and another], WP(C) 154 of 2016 [Sri Sudhir Sutradhar vs. The State of Tripura and another], WP(C) 155 of 2016 [Sri Jiban Kumar Shil vs. The State of Tripura and another] and WP(C) 273 of 2016 [Sri Rabindra Chandra Sutradhar vs. The State of Tripura and another] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as a common question wades through all these writ petitions. 3. Admittedly, the writ petitioners are the piece rated workers. It appears that the writ petitioners of WP(C) 130 of 2016, WP(C) 153 of 2016, WP(C) 154 of 2016 and WP(C) 155 of 2016 were engaged as the piece rated workers w.e.f. 26.10.1978 and they are still continuing in the said capacity. The writ petitioner in WP(C) 273 of 2016, however, was engaged on 25.08.1983. He is also continuing in the said capacity. The ‘Piece Rated Worker’ are those whose wage is paid on the value of their labour for producing any material or for taking part in any part of the manufacturing process. They are not the casual employees within the meaning of the usual parlance nor do they hold any civil post. The petitioners by filing these writ petitions have urged this court for direction for their regularization as the industrial worker inasmuch as some Piece Rated Workers have been regularized as industrial workers by the order dated 21.08.1977. 4. Ms. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the matter relating to regularization of the Piece Rated Workers was considered by the Council of Ministers in their meeting held on 03.06.2000 but the said proposal for regularization of the piece rated workers under the Department of Industries and Commerce was for unconscionable reasons not approved by the Council of Ministers. 5. By filing the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a position by contending as under: “As per record age of the petitioner at that time was 37 years 4 months and his educational qualification was VI passed. 5. By filing the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a position by contending as under: “As per record age of the petitioner at that time was 37 years 4 months and his educational qualification was VI passed. Therefore for regularization of their service relaxation of age and qualification were necessary. The matter has also been referred to the Appointment & Service Department now GA(P&T) Department, Government of Tripura seeking relaxation of age and qualification etc. of Piece Rated Workers for absorption to the post of Junior Production Assistant against vacant quota. But, Department of Appointment & Service, Government of Tripura vide their U.O No. 3740/GA/98 dated 21.08.1998 have regretted their inability to consider such relaxation.” It is in respect of each of the writ petitioners by filing the separate counter affidavit in each writ petition as stated. Those respondents have further contended that the proposal for regularization of the Piece Rated Workers had been placed before the meeting of the Council of Ministers’ held on 03.06.2000 but it appears from the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Ministers’ that regularization of the Piece Rated Workers under the Department of Industries and Commerce is not approved vide memorandum No. F.8(5)-GA(CAB)-2000 dated 05.06.2006. Therefore, the respondents have submitted that the writ petitioners do not have any indefeasible right to claim regularization. Even they cannot be absorbed as the Daily Rated Workers [DRW]. 6. This court by the order dated 09.01.2017 had asked Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate to take instructions on the following two aspects (i) whether the council of Ministers had considered to grant one time relaxation of the requirement of the Recruitment Rules for the employees in the class of the petitioner or simply the council of Ministers has refused to grant regularization since the petitioner and alike were not covered by the Recruitment Rules and (ii) whether if in the event of extreme emerging situation, the petitioners are not regularized directly to the substantive post by way of the relaxation as indicated above, can they be accommodated under a scheme in consideration of their considerable length of service for more than 10 years, in the grade of DRW in terms of the extant Government policy? 7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate has produced instruction in writing which is relevant and accordingly it is reproduced. 7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate has produced instruction in writing which is relevant and accordingly it is reproduced. The instruction is as under: “Regarding Column No. (i): whether the council of Ministers had considered to grant one time relaxation of the requirement of the Recruitment Rules for the employees in the class of the petitioner or simply the council of Ministers has refused to grant regularization since the petitioner and alike were not covered by the Recruitment Rules and Reply: It is fact that the following petitioners were engaged as piece Rated Worker on the dates as mentioned below at Model Carpentry Unit, Howaibari, Teliamura and Dhajanagar Industrial Estate Udaipur under the Directorate of Industries & Commerce. Sl Name of Petitioner Date of birth Date of joining Remarks Model Carpentry Unit, Howaibari, Teliamura 1. Sri Narayan Sutradhar 12.03.1961 26.10.78 WP(C) No. 130/2016 2. Sri Rabindra Ch. Sutradhar 06.03.1660 26.10.78 WP(C) No. 153/2016 3. Sri Sudhir ch. Sutradhar 04.01.1960 26.10.78 WP(C) No. 154/2016 4. Sri Jiban kr. Shil 02.07.1956 26.10.78 WP(C) No. 155/2016 Dhajanagar Industrial Estate, Udaipur, Gomati 5. Sri Rabindra ch. Sutradhar 09.01.1959 25.08.83 WP(C) No. 273/2016 Recruitment Rules for the post of Jr. Production Assistant has been framed in the year 1998. Directorate of Industries & Commerce has initiated a proposal for regularization of the above Piece Rated Workers working in the Industrial Estates from the vacant post of Junior Production Assistant to unreserved category by relaxation of recruitment rules of Junior Production Assistant in regard to age, educational qualification and employment exchange card from the existing vacancies of Jr. Production Assistant. As per Recruitment Rules the post of Junior Production Assistant, minimum qualification Class VIII passed with ITI certificate of relevant trades and maximum age limit is 37(thirty seven). The matter has also been referred to the Appointment & Service Department now GA(P&T) Department, Govt. of Tripura seeking relaxation of age & qualification etc. of Piece Rated Workers for absorption to the post of Junior Production Assistant against vacant quota. But Department of Appointment & Service, Govt. of Tripura vide their U.O No. 3740/GA/98 dated 21.08.98 have regretted their inability to consider such relaxation (Annexure-I) Again, the proposal for regularization of Piece Rated Workers had been placed before the Council of Minister’s meeting held on 03.06.2000. But Department of Appointment & Service, Govt. of Tripura vide their U.O No. 3740/GA/98 dated 21.08.98 have regretted their inability to consider such relaxation (Annexure-I) Again, the proposal for regularization of Piece Rated Workers had been placed before the Council of Minister’s meeting held on 03.06.2000. But it appears from the Minutes of the Council of Ministers meeting received from the Under Secretary GA(C&C) Department vide memorandum No. F.8(5)-GA(CAB)-2000 dated 05.06.2000 that regularization of Piece Rated Workers under the Department of Industries & Commerce is Not Approved (Annexure-II) Regarding Column No (ii) whether in the event of extreme emerging situation the petitioner is not regularized directly to the substantive post by way of the relaxation as indicated above, can the petitioner be accommodated under the scheme in consideration of their considerable length of service more than 10 years in the grade of DRW in terms of the Government policy or not ? Reply: Regularization of services of DRWs/MRWs/Casual/Contingent/Consolidated Fixed/Fixed etc. workers of PSUs/Others Autonomous organizations of the state Government engaged on full time on or prior to 31.03.2003 and on completion of 10 years of continuous service subject to the consent of Finance Department vide Memo No. F.34(3)-FIN(G)/12, dated 09.04.203. But the petitioners are serving in the capacity of Piece Rated Workers not in the service of DRWs/MRWs/Casual/Contingent/Consolidated Fixed/Fixed etc. (Memo. Dt. 09.04.2013 enclosed in Annexure-III)” 8. Having considered the averments appeared in the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents as well as the written instruction produced by Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court is constrained to observe that the petitioners do not have any individual right to claim regularization. Notwithstanding that the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh whether they can be brought under the regular establishment or not by framing a special scheme as those Piece Rated Workers come of a poor strata who are working in the production unit of the State. The government may only recognize their service for purpose of calculating the pension if they are brought under regular establishment in view of the memorandum No.F.8(3)-FIN(G)/78 dated 19.07.1982. The benevolent government, it is expected, shall take the utmost effort as an alleviating measure for these poor Piece Rated Workers by framing a special scheme so that they can be brought under the regular establishment or under a regular structure. The benevolent government, it is expected, shall take the utmost effort as an alleviating measure for these poor Piece Rated Workers by framing a special scheme so that they can be brought under the regular establishment or under a regular structure. It would only aid them to achieve security for their engagements. 9. Subject to the observation as made above, the writ petitions are dismissed. It is expected that the State shall take steps for framing a scheme in terms of the above without further delay. No order as to costs.