The Tripura High Court dismissed the petition of a Part-Time worker seeking regularization of service and held that none can claim regularization as a matter of right as it is a right, which may be considered in the realm of government policies and the petitioner could not justify that there was any sanctioned vacant post under the respondents to absorb the petitioner.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, employed as a Part-Time worker claimed regularization of his service after completing ten years of service under the respondents.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a memorandum wherein the Government of Tripura had taken a policy decision to regularize the services of DRWs/Casual/Contingent workers on the next date of completion of ten years of service.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the said memorandum was repealed by the government in 2019 and there was thus no policy in place for regularization of services of such DRWs/Casual/Contingent workers.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the right of the petitioner was accrued during the existence of the policy decision of the government when he had completed ten years of service as Part Time worker under the respondents. It was further observed that the petitioner could not justify that there was any sanctioned vacant post under the respondents to absorb the petitioner.
It was further stated that during the existence of the policy decision, the petitioner did not approach the court claiming regularization and the petitioner only submitted representations before the respondents claiming his regularization and repeated submission of representations will give rise to any new cause of action and none can claim regularization as a matter of right as it is a right, which may be considered in the realm of government policies.
The court further stated that the present petition suffered from the established doctrine of delay and latches.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition as it was devoid of any merits.
Case Title: Uttam Paul vs State of Tripura vs ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh
Case No.: WP(C) No. 138/2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. A. Bhaumik
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. N. Majumdar and Mr. D Sarma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
