Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 71 (TRI)

Haralal Bhowmik v. State of Tripura

2018-03-08

S.TALAPATRA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D.C. Nath, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have urged this court to treat the petitioners as the Farm Workers from the date when their junior, the respondents No.4-6 had joined in the said capacity by virtue of the Notification No.F.2(100)-Agri/(Estt.)/1983-87/Part/13549-554 dated 22.12.2007 and also to treat them as the permanent labourers with effect from 01.12.1997, the date when the respondents No.4-6 were declared as the permanent labourers. In short, the petitioners have urged before this court to treat them as the permanent labourers with effect from 01.12.1997 and as the farm workers with effect from 01.12.2007 in the scale of pay of Rs.2600-3545/-. 3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners as unfolded in this writ petition is that even though the petitioners had entered in the service as the DRW (Group-D) before 01.12.1981 and they were engaged in the permanent labourer thereafter. But by unequally treating them with the similarly circumstanced persons by the notification No.F.2(139)-Agri/Estt./89-90/101-50 dated 01.06.1987 some DRWs (Group-D) were declared as the permanent labourers. It is an admitted position that the petitioners’ name did not figure in that list. 4. By the said Notification No. F.2(139)-Agri/Estt./89-90/101-50 dated 01.06.1987, some of the juniors of the petitioners including the respondent No.4 was shown as the permanent labourer, though the said respondent joined as the DRW on 01.02.1985. With the said notification, a list of the permanent labourers was enclosed where the name of the respondent No.4 appears at serial No.714. 5. Having situated similarly, another deprived DRW namely Mohan Miah approached the respondent No.2, the Director of Agriculture, Government of Tripura by filing a representation. On 30.03.2001 the respondent No.2, in response to the said representation, informed that DRW (UR) who were engaged till 01.01.1981 had been declared permanent labourer, but it appeared from the record that said Mohan Miah was engaged on 03.12.1981 and as such he could not be accommodated in the said list. On 30.03.2001 the respondent No.2, in response to the said representation, informed that DRW (UR) who were engaged till 01.01.1981 had been declared permanent labourer, but it appeared from the record that said Mohan Miah was engaged on 03.12.1981 and as such he could not be accommodated in the said list. According to the petitioners, as per the final seniority list of the permanent labourers under the Department of Agriculture as published by the memorandum No.F.2(114)-Agri (Estt)/89-90/8720-81 dated 20.05.2010 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] the date of entry in the service of the petitioner No.1 is shown on 03.09.1980 and as such in terms of the communication dated 30.03.2001 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition], the said petitioner was supposed to be declared as the permanent labourer as his engagement was before 01.12.1981, but that did not happen. 6. The remaining petitioners were engaged as the DRW on the dates as shown in the table below: Sl. No. Name of the petitioners Date of engagement as DRW 1. Sri Sukhamoy Chakraborty 03.02.1973 2. Sri Sunil Debnath 05.05.1980 3. Sri Gopi Kanta Das 25.05.1981 4. Sri Nimai Das 05.03.1981 5. Sri Gopal Chandra Mazumder 09.08.1974 6. Sri Pran Krishna Das 05.03.1981 7. Sri Dhirendra Debnath 05.05.1980 8. Sri Kanchilal Das 25.05.1981 9. Sri Bijoy Krishna Debnath 07.01.1981 It thus appears from the date of engagement as reflected in the final seniority list of the permanent labourers published by the memorandum No. No.F.2(114)-Agri (Estt)/89-90/8720-81 dated 20.05.2010 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] that all the petitioners were engaged as DRWs prior to 01.12.1981 and they all were eligible to be declared as the permanent labourer. 7. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that said Mohan Miah had approached this court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.110 of 2016, which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 01.11.2016 with the following direction: “The petitioner shall be treated as the permanent labourer w.e.f. 01.12.1997, the date on which the respondents no.4,6 and 7 were so declared and he shall be further appointed in the post of Farm Worker w.e.f. 01.12.2007 from the date when the respondents no.4, 6 and 7 were so appointed in the scale of pay of Rs.2600-3545/- by virtue of the Office Order dated 07.05.2008. Till 05.02.2013 the pay of the petitioner shall be fixed notionally. Till 05.02.2013 the pay of the petitioner shall be fixed notionally. The petitioner will not get any pecuniary benefits for that period but the petitioner will be entitled to get the pecuniary benefits thereafter. It is made clear that the benefit that has already been received by the petitioner shall duly be adjusted.” 8. Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that this case is wholly covered by the said judgment, despite some minor variations in fact. The said proposition is acceded to by Mr. D.C. Nath, learned Addl. G.A. stating that the mistake is apparent on the face of the records. 9. In view of this, this petition stands allowed with the following direction: The petitioners shall be treated as the permanent labourers w.e.f. 01.12.1997, the date on which the respondents no.4, 6 and 7 were so declared and they shall be further appointed in the post of Farm Worker w.e.f. 01.12.2007 from the date when the respondents no.4, 6 and 7 were so appointed in the scale of pay of Rs.2600-3545/- by virtue of the Office Order dated 07.05.2008. Till 15.11.2014 [three years prior to the date of filing the writ petition] the pay of the petitioner shall be fixed notionally. The petitioner will not get any pecuniary benefits for that period, but the petitioner will be entitled to get all pecuniary benefits on and from 16.11.2014 and thereafter. It is made clear that the benefit that has already been received by the petitioners shall duly be adjusted. There shall be no order as to costs.