Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 208 (TRI)

Gopendra Suklabaiya v. State of Tripura

2021-11-15

ARINDAM LODH

body2021
JUDGMENT The matter was heard on 07.10.2021 at length and the judgment was passed orally in open Court. But, after passing the judgment this court found some errors on factual aspects which were not brought to the notice of the court and as such, fixed the matter at the column “Speaking to the Minutes” for re-hearing. 2. Today (15.11.2021) I heard again Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. S. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 3. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for regularization and restoration of his service. 4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was engaged as Daily Rated Worker (DRW) on 19.04.2003. It is his grievance that since October, 2019 he was not paid of his wages and not allowed to continue his job as Casual Worker under the respondents. 5. Mr. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the service of the petitioner as Casual Worker should be regularized granting regular pay scale applicable for a Group ‘D’ employee. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as a Casual Worker on 19.04.2003 and he did not come within the purview of the policy declared by the State respondents vide Memorandum dated 1st September, 2008 and 21st January, 2009, which provided that the persons who were irregularly engaged as Casual/Contingent/Daily Rated Worker with financial concurrence and completed 10 years of service as on 31.03.2008 would be eligible for regularization. However, the State-respondents i.e. the Finance Department, Government of Tripura had taken policy dated 03.01.2014 after being noticed that some of such Casual/Contingent/Daily Rated Workers were engaged after 31.03.2003 and the State-respondents in their own wisdom had taken a policy to regularize the services of those Casual/Contingent/Daily Rated Workers who had completed 10 years of service on their engagement after 31.03.2003 with prior concurrence of the Finance Department. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on 19.04.2003 i.e. after 31.03.2003. The competent authority under which the petitioner was engaged had made correspondence with the Director of School Education informing him that the petitioner was engaged on 19.04.2003 as Casual Worker and has been serving the department with the consent of the Finance Department of the State Government and also had completed 10 years of service. The competent authority under which the petitioner was engaged had made correspondence with the Director of School Education informing him that the petitioner was engaged on 19.04.2003 as Casual Worker and has been serving the department with the consent of the Finance Department of the State Government and also had completed 10 years of service. As per the policy decision of the Government dated 03.01.2014, the service of the petitioner ought to have been regularized w.e.f. the next date of completion of 10 years of service i.e. w.e.f. 20.04.2013. 6. In pursuance of the policy dated 03.01.2014, the Principal, Government Degree College, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, made a communication dated 27th January, 2014 to the Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura [Annexure 12 to the writ petition] wherein he was informed about the status of the petitioner. But for certain reasons the service of the petitioner was not regularized. But, admittedly, the service of the petitioner was continued by the respondents and his wages were being paid. All on a sudden, the Principal, Government Degree College, Dharmanagar, North Tripura vide communication dated 4th December, 2019 had informed the petitioner that his salary was held up from October, 2019 in view of the Memorandum dated 31st July,2018, which was issued by the Under Secretary, Government of Tripura, Finance Department. It is noticed that the State-respondents to ensure transparent public employment policy for engagement of staff for such services, all the memorandums were repealed. The wages of the petitioner was held up and he was not allowed to continue his service under the Principal, Government Degree College, Dharmanagar, North Tripura. 7. Mrs. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that the present petition is barred by principle of delay and laches. The petitioner would have approached the court much earlier when he completed 10 years of service on 19.04.2013. 8. I have noticed that in pursuance of the policy decision dated 03.01.2014, the Principal, Government Degree College, Dharmanagar, North Tripura had informed the Directorate of Higher Education for regularization of the service of the petitioner after furnishing all details of the petitioner, but, the State-respondents were sitting idle. The respondents had utilized his service for almost 16 (sixteen) years. 8. I have noticed that in pursuance of the policy decision dated 03.01.2014, the Principal, Government Degree College, Dharmanagar, North Tripura had informed the Directorate of Higher Education for regularization of the service of the petitioner after furnishing all details of the petitioner, but, the State-respondents were sitting idle. The respondents had utilized his service for almost 16 (sixteen) years. In my opinion, though the previous policies were repealed, but, the petitioner had accrued his right to regularize during the existence of a valid policy which was declared by the Government on 03.01.2014. As such, the petitioner is entitled for regularization. The State-respondents are directed to issue necessary direction for regularizing the service of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Simultaneously, the State-respondents shall restore his service as Casual Worker in which capacity he was working under the Principal, Government Degree College, Dharmanagar within 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed.