The Tripura High Court dismissed a petition seeking regularization of service after serving as a casual worker for a long time and held that the service of the petitioner was not only irregular but also her appointment was entirely against the constitutional schemes as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the constitution.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, working as a Casual Basis Worker in the office of the Child Development Officer filed the present writ petition claiming regularization of her service for rendering of her services for a long period.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the services of similarly situated workers had been regularized by the respondents but the services of the petitioner were not regularized.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the service of the petitioner cannot be regularized on the ground that there is no sanctioned post and the appointment of the petitioner was not made following the norms and regulations of appointing an employee under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the Memorandum where the Government of Tripura found that many departments of the government had been engaging workers without the prior concurrence of the Finance Department and further observed that as per the provision of the existing rules, those engagements were liable to be summarily terminated and responsibility should be fixed on the officials responsible for such irregular engagements as it had led to administrative and financial indiscipline. The court further observed that the government decided to allow these workers to continue their work as per the existing wage rate, considering their livelihood.
The court stated that the service of the petitioner was not only irregular but also an illegal appointment and there was no material to show that the petitioner was engaged in any sanctioned regular vacant post and her appointment was entirely against the constitutional schemes as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. It was further stated that she was not appointed by the competent authority and it was not clear if she had any requisite qualification to hold any post under the respondents.
The court further stated that if any illegalities have been committed by the authorities in regularizing the services of the other similarly situated workers, then such mistakes cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and the regularization of services of these workers cannot be taken as precedent for regularizing the services of the petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The court found the petition devoid of any merits and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Sabita Barman vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh
Case No.: WP(C) 732/2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Ms. A. Debbarma
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. M. Debbarma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
