Smti. Mandhadari Rupini vs The State Of Tripura And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 674 Tri

                                     Page 1 of 2




                         HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                             WA No.182 of 2021
Smti. Mandhadari Rupini
                                                         ......... Appellant(s)

                                       Versus

The State of Tripura and others
                                                         ........ Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Banerjee, Advocate, Ms. R. Majumder, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)             : Mr. P.K Dhar, Sr. G.A.

        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                                 _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_
06/07/2021
(Akil kureshi, CJ)

This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge a

portion of the judgment dated 07.05.2021 passed in WP(C) No.108 of

2021. The petitioner had complained about her non-regularization though

the scheme for regularization framed by the Government of Tripura,

according to her covered her case. The learned Single Judge by the

impugned judgment accepted the case of the petitioner, directed her

regularization from due date and also provided limited arrears. The

learned Single Judge, however, confined such benefit of arrears to three

years preceding the date of filing of the petition. It is this portion of the

judgment of the learned Single Judge has aggrieved the petitioner upon

which this writ appeal has been filed.

We do not find the learned Single Judge has committed any

arrear in providing that the benefit of arrears of pay on the basis of

retrospective regularization would be limited to three years preceding the

date of filing the petition. As such, the petition was filed several years

after the petitioner's right to seek regularization crystallized.

Under the circumstances, while not dismissing the petition

and in fact giving the benefit of regularization from the due date, the

learned Single Judge merely confined the arrears to three years prior to

filing of the petition. This was perfectly in order. Reference to other cases

made by the counsel for the petitioner is of no use. The judgment of the

learned Single Judge produced at page-63 of the compilation of the

petition would immediately show that the petition was filed in the said

case in the year 2017 whereas the present petitioner had approached the

High Court in the year 2021. Her due date of regularization was in the

year 2013.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if

any, also stands disposed of.

(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J                               (AKIL KURESHI), CJ



Dipesh