The Tripura High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking regularization of service of a part-time worker and held that regularization or absorption is not a matter of right and it is a right which is to be considered by the respondents and subject to availability of vacancy in the post, and other conditions of service.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, serving as Part Time Worker under the respondents became entitled to be regularized in service on completion of ten years and the respondents vide memorandums regularized the service of similarly situated persons but the service of the petitioner was not regularized. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the issue of Mandamus calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the service of the petitioner should not be regularized and the pay and allowances should not be paid with retrospective effect.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The petitioner contended that since he has completed ten years of service, so he is entitled to be regularized in the said post.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the present petition was barred by limitation and there was no explanation as to why the petitioner was sitting idle for the last 14 years. It was further argued that the said policy decision was not repealed by the government.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the right of the petitioner matured during the existence of the said policy and when he had completed ten years of service as Part Time worker under the respondents he did not claim regularization within the scheme prevalent before and thus the instant petition suffered from the doctrine of delay and laches as after a lapse of more than 14 years, the petitioner suddenly woke up from the slumber and ventilated his grievance by filing the instant writ petition and was mot diligent in pursuing his case.
It was further stated that regularization or absorption is not a matter of right and it is a right which is to be considered by the respondents and subject to availability of vacancy in the post, and other conditions of service.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition as it was devoid of any merit.
Case Title: Sri Lankaram Reang vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh
Case No.: WP(C) 463/2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. A. Acharjee
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. D. Bhattacharjee and Mr. S. Saha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
