Tripura High Court
Sri Sujit Roy And Others vs The State Of Tripura & Others on 7 January, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WP(C) No.623 of 2020
Sri Sujit Roy and others
..........Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
The State of Tripura & others
...........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
ORDER
07/01/2021
Petitioners have prayed for the directions to the respondents to
absorb them as permanent labourers in terms of Rules 4 & 5 of Tripura
Government Sepahijala Biological Complex/any other Complex/Institution
Permanent Labourers (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1990
(hereinafter to be referred as the said Rules).
The petitioners contend that they have been engaged as casual
workers from different dates as under :
Names of the Date of Engagement Educational Year of Service/Attached
Petitioners as Casual worker Qualification with the O/o the SDFO
Sujit Roy 01.01.2010 M.A in Education 8 years above SDFO,
Teliamura
Bijoy Krishna Dey 01.04.2010 Class- XII Pass 8 years above SDFO,
Teliamura
Angshuman Datta 01.11.2011 Bachelor in Arts 7 years above SDFO,
Teliamura
Rupak Deb 22.05.2010 Class-XII Pass 7 years above SDFO,
Teliamura
Biplab Roy 01.06.2010 Class-XII Pass 7 years above SDFO,
Mandai.
Mangal Hari Jamatia 01.04.2010 Class-XII Pass 7 years above SDFO,
Khowai.
Prodyut Chowdhury 15.10.2008 Class-XII Pass 9 years above SDFO,
Sabroom.
Shyam Saha 03.05.2013 Class-XII Pass 5 years above SDFO,
Karbook.
Bappa Paul 17.05.2010 Class-XII Pass 7 years above SDFO,
Kanchapur.
Koushik Ch. Paul 10.05.2013 Class-X Pass 5 years above SDFO,
Dharmanagar.
The above data would show that all the petitioners possess the
minimum qualification of Class-X Pass. They point out that in terms of the
said Rules upon the labourers performing continuous full time employment
for 3(three) years with a minimum of 240 days of working each year,
would be entitled to be absorbed as permanent labourers. The petitioners
point out that the authorities had undertaken an exercise to regularize all
such labourers including the petitioners. However, after absorbing more
than 300 such labourers this exercise was not carried to its logical
conclusion. The petitioners placed heavy reliance on a judgment of this
Court in case of Gopesh Malakar and others versus the State of Tripura
and others in WP(C) No.450 of 2019 and connected petitions dated
13.09.2019 in which under identical circumstances the Court examined the
grievances of the petitioners therein and held and observed as under :
"[21] In view of this observation, this court is of the view that the
petitioner shall be declared as permanent labourers against the existing
14 vacancies and they shall be declared permanent labourers for all
purposes w.e.f. 11.01.2018 when last 8 casual workers were absorbed as
Permanent Labourers by the Forest Department by virtue of the office
order dated 11.01.2018. The declaration of Permanent Labourers w.e.f.
11.01.2018 shall be made within a period of 3 (three) months from the
day when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order. The arrear
pay and allowances as might accrue for the retrospective absorption of
the petitioners as the Permanent Labourers shall be paid within the
next 3 (three) months from the date of absorption of the petitioners as
the Permanent Labourer."
Learned counsel for the petitioners so pointed out that the
respondents had challenged the said judgment of this Court in case of
Gopesh Malakar in Writ Appeal No.192 of 2020 which has been dismissed
by a judgment dated 22.12.2020.
The respondents have not raised any serious dispute about the
factual data provided by the petitioners particularly with respect to their
initial date of engagement, their qualifications and the fact that all of them
had put in more than 240 days of actual work in each of the 3(three) years
under consideration. The dispute about the petitioners being engaged
against the project has already been examined in the previous litigation in
case of Gopesh Malakar and cannot be reopened now. The sole surviving
objection pressed by the Additional Government Advocate was that the
said Rules were later on repealed in 2020. The rights of the petitioners flow
from events much prior to the repeal of the Rules. Such existing rights
cannot be taken away by subsequent repeal.
In the result, petitions are allowed. The respondents shall absorb
the petitioners as permanent labourers in the Forest Department w.e.f.
11.01.2018.
Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Dipesh
