Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 106 (TRI)

Uttam Biswas v. State of Tripura

2021-07-23

ARINDAM LODH

body2021
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondent and Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for respondents-Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. 2. This is a case for regularization of the service of the petitioner in the post of Group-D. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as ‘Meter Reader’ under the State Electricity Department on recommendation of the Block Development Officer, Sadar, North Block, Mohanpur vide order dated 14th July, 2003. The petitioner joined his service on 21st July, 2003. The plea of the petitioner is that, in terms of the memorandum dated 21.01.2009, issued by the Government of Tripura, Department of Finance, the petitioner became eligible for regularization against the post of Group-D, since, he completed 10 years of service as Daily Rated Worker. The Deputy General Manager, Mohanpur Electrical Division submitted a list of Daily Rated Workers/Part Time Workers under the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited addressed to the Addl. General Manager, Electrical Circle No. IV, Agartala, Tripura, West along with their salary statements. In the said list, the name of the petitioner appeared and his status/designation was shown as Daily Rated Worker performing duty for eight hours. The said list also mentioned the date of his engagement as on 21.07.2003 and his wage was fixed at Rs.4,434.00/-. In the said, list at column No.13, it shows that the service of the petitioner as Daily Rated Worker had financial concurrence under reference No.10(22)/FIN/G/DWR. 3. The petitioner submitted representation. The said representation was regretted by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura. As per the direction of this Court, a committee was constituted by the Government to examine and verify the records of such Daily Rated Workers and it was directed that on such consideration, the respondents would consider the regularization of eligible DRW/Casual/Contingent workers. The committee submitted its report and on consideration of the report, the State-respondents found that the petitioner was not eligible for regularization. The ground of such rejection as averred in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents-TSECL and the State-respondent is that the petitioner was irregularly engaged by the Block Development Officer. The Director, Finance, TSECL, Agartala informed the petitioner vide letter dated 05.08.2019 stating that “Finance Department regrets the proposal of TSECL”. 4. The ground of such rejection as averred in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents-TSECL and the State-respondent is that the petitioner was irregularly engaged by the Block Development Officer. The Director, Finance, TSECL, Agartala informed the petitioner vide letter dated 05.08.2019 stating that “Finance Department regrets the proposal of TSECL”. 4. There is no dispute that the petitioner was engaged irregularly. The highest executive body i.e. the Council of Ministers of the State had taken a policy decision for making payment of wages to those irregularly engaged workers who were engaged as DRW/Part Time/Contingent/Casual/Fixed workers etc. In the said list, the name of the petitioner also appeared. The Council of Ministers also had taken a policy decision vide memorandum dated 01.09.2008 for regularization of the services of the DRW/Casual/Contingent workers on completion of 10 years of service as on 31.03.2008. Thereafter, the said policy was modified vide memorandum dated 21.01.2009, wherein, the policymakers on their own wisdom had withdrawn the cutoff date i.e. 31.03.2008 for the purpose of regularization of services of DRW etc. Under the modified memorandum dated 21.01.2009, the Government has decided and directed all its instrumentalities to regularize the service of DRW/Casual/Contingent workers from the next date of their completion of 10 years of service. As I said earlier, in view of the list published by Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, the date of engagement of the petitioner as DRW was shown as 21.07.2003. In view of this, in pursuance of the memorandum dated 21.01.2009, the service of the petitioner ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 22.07.2013 i.e. the next date of completion of his 10 years of service as DRW on 21.07.2003. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the Government of Tripura has taken policy decision to regularize the services of those DRWs/Contingent/Casual workers whose engagements were irregular, perhaps, in view of the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) as one-time measure. 5. The ground taken by the State Finance Department that the service of the petitioner cannot be regularized since he was irregularly engaged appears to be inconsistent with the object of the policy the legislature wanted to achieve. 5. The ground taken by the State Finance Department that the service of the petitioner cannot be regularized since he was irregularly engaged appears to be inconsistent with the object of the policy the legislature wanted to achieve. As such, I am not in agreement with the ground of rejection of the prayer of the petitioner to regularize his service in the post of Group-D on completion of his 10 years of service as DRW. 6. Having held so, the communication dated 05.08.2019 whereby, the petitioner was informed that the Finance Department regretted the proposal of Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. for regularization of the petitioner in the post of Group-D as well as the connected communication that was made by the Finance Department of Govt. of Tripura informing the TSECL regretting its proposal for regularization of the service of the petitioner as Group-D employee is set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to regularize the petitioner w.e.f. 22.07.2013 in the post of Group-D. The entire exercise of such regularization shall be completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the respondents. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be entitled to all financial benefits including pay and allowances for the purpose of his pension notionally, but no arrears of pay. The petitioner shall be entitled to draw actual salary from the date of the order of his appointment as Group-D employee that must be issued within 3(three) months as stated above. 7. With the above observation and directions, the instant writ petition stands allowed and thus disposed of.