Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt. Archana Das vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 752 Tri

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 752 Tri
Judgement Date : 6 August, 2021

Tripura High Court
Smt. Archana Das vs The State Of Tripura on 6 August, 2021
                                Page 1 of 5


                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA

                            W.P. (C) No.1387/2017

Smt. Archana Das,
W/O- Sri Sanjiv Dey, Sabroom Thakur Palli, P.O- Sabroom,
South Tripura District, 799145.
                                                      .....Petitioner(s)

                            Versus

1. The State of Tripura,
   represented by the Secretary, Govt. Of Tripura, Urban Development
   Department, New Secretariat Complex, Agartala, P.O- Bidhanb Sabha,
   799010.

2. The Sabroom Nagar Panchayet,
   Sabroom, South Tripura District, represented by its Chairperson,
   Sabroom Nagar Panchayet, Sabroom, South Tripura, 799145.


3. The District Magistrate & Collector,
   South Tripura District, Belonia.


4. The Director,
   Govt. Of Tripura, Urban Development Department, Agartala,
   Tripura West.


5. The Executive Officer,
   Sabroom Nagar Panchayet, Sabroom, South Tripura District.

6. Smt. Anna Laxmi Tripura, Sri Gunadhar Tripura, LDC, Sabroom
   Nagar Panchayet, South Tripura District.

                                                        .....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)             : Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)             : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA.



      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

Date of hearing               : 29.07.2021.

Date of delivery of            : 06.08.2021.
Judgment & order

Whether fit for reporting      : No.


                        JUDGMENT & ORDER

The petitioner has prayed for her regularization with effect from

01.10.2010 and grant of scale of pay of Rs.5310-24000/- with a Grade Pay

of Rs.1800/- with the further prayer that she should be granted the benefit

of 1st ACP with effect from 01.10.2015.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she along with respondent No.6,

Smt. Annalaxmi Tripura were appointed as DRW (Group-C) under

Sabroom Nagar Panchayat in December, 1997. In October, 1999, services

of the petitioner and respondent No.6 were converted into fixed pay basis

with effect from 01.10.1999. In the year 2005, Sabroom Nagar Panchayat

invited applications for filling up two posts of LDC. The petitioner applied

in response to the said requisition and she was appointed on the said post

as a UR category candidate on 01.10.2005 on fixed monthly salary of

Rs.2,145/-. The Sabroom Nagar Panchayat sent proposal for regularization

of the service of the DRWs, Casual and Contingent workers on completion

of 10 years of service as on 31.03.2008 to the Director of Urban

Development Department, Government of Tripura under a letter dated

20.11.2009. Name of the petitioner was included in the said list. Name of

Smt. Annalaxmi Tripura was also in the said list. Yet another proposal was

made by the Panchayat for the same purpose on 01.07.2013. Despite this,

the petitioner's service was not regularized. She, therefore, made a

representation to the Director of Urban Development Department on

30.10.2013. The petitioner points out that Smt. Annalaxmi Tripura has

been granted regular pay scale with effect from 01.10.2010. Upon

completion of 5 years of continuous service, the petitioner has neither been

granted regular pay scale nor given benefit of 1st ACP, which is provided

to respondent No.6. It is in this background that the petitioner has made

above noted prayers.

3. The respondents have appeared and filed reply in which mainly it is

stated that though proposals were sent by the Panchayat for regularization

of the service of the petitioner, the same could not be accepted. It is

pointed out that Smt. Annalaxmi Tripura was appointed in the post of LDC

under O.M. dated 27.09.2005 against reserved post for ST candidate. In

due course, she was granted regular pay scale and also the benefit of 1 st

ACP as par the policy of the Government. However, with respect to the

petitioner, she was engaged against a post for which vacancy was created

due to promotion of one Sri Gopal Chandra Majumder to the post of UDC

from the post of LDC. It is pointed out that in Sabroom Nagar Panchayat

there was no sanctioned post of UDC and therefore promotion of Sri Gopal

Chandra Majumder was not permissible and was cancelled. It was on

account of un-authorized promotion of Gopal Chandra Majumder that

Sabroom Nagar Panchayat had treated the post of LDC as vacant whereas

such vacancy never arose. On account of such developments,

subsequently, Sabroom Nagar Panchayat has also sent a proposal for

creation of a post of LDC on which the petitioner could be regularized.

4. The documents on record would thus show that though the petitioner

and Smt. Annalaxmi Tripura were initially engaged as DRW on the same

day, Smt. Annalaxmi Tripura was appointed to the post of LDC, which

was reserved for ST category candidates. The petitioner was engaged as

LDC against the post, which was at the relevant time thought to be an un-

reserved vacancy, however, subsequently, it was revealed that the vacancy

had never arisen. The regular incumbent Gopal Chandra Majumder was

promoted to the post of UDC on a non-existent vacancy. Since there was

no such sanctioned post of UDC in Sabroom Nagar Panchayat, under the

instructions of the Director of Urban Development Department, promotion

of Gopal Chandra Majumder was cancelled. Upon reversion of Gopal

Chandra Majumder to the original post of LDC, no post was left vacant for

absorbing the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, cannot seek

regularization on a post which does not exist. The Sabroom Nagar

Panchayat has, of course, later on sent a proposal for creation of additional

post of LDC on which the petitioner can be absorbed. However, it is

nothing on the record to suggest that such proposal has been accepted by

the Government.

5. Under the circumstances, the prayers of the petitioner cannot be

granted. Petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(AKIL KURESHI), CJ

sima

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter