Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Sri Subrata Singha on 30 March, 2021
Page - 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.126/2021 and WA No.128/2021
A) WA No.126/2021 :
1. The State of Tripura.
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Forest Department, Agartala.
2. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Finance Department, Agartala.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Government of Tripura, Aranya Bhavan,
Pt. Nehru Complex, Agartala, P.S. East Agartala.
4. The Deputy Conservator of Forest (HQ),
Office of the Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests,
Aranya Bhavan, Pt. Nehru Complex, Agartala,
P.S. East Agartala.
5. The Managing Director,
Tripura Forest Development and Plantation Corporation Limited,
Registered Office, Abhoynagar, Agartala, District - West Tripura,
Pin -799005.
.............. Appellant(s).
Vs.
Sri Subrata Singha
S/o Sri Abhinoy Singha, resident of Village - Dhaleswar,
P.S. East Agartala, District - West Tripura.
.............. Respondent(s).
Page - 2 of 6
B) WA No.128/2021 :
1. The State of Tripura.
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Forest Department, Agartala.
2. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Finance Department, Agartala.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Government of Tripura, Aranya Bhavan,
Pt. Nehru Complex, Agartala, P.S. East Agartala.
4. The Deputy Conservator of Forest (HQ),
Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Aranya Bhavan, Pt. Nehru Complex, Agartala,
P.S. East Agartala.
5. The Managing Director,
Tripura Forest Development and Plantation Corporation Limited,
Registered Office, Abhoynagar, Agartala, District - West Tripura,
Pin -799005.
.............. Appellant(s).
Vs.
Sri Uttam Malakar, S/o Sri Kajal Malakar, resident of Kumaritilla,
P.O - Abhoynagar, P.S. - East Agartala, District - West Tripura.
.............. Respondent(s).
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharya G.A.,
Mr. N C Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
Date of hearing & judgment : 30th March, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
Page - 3 of 6
J U D G M E N T ( O R A L)
(Akil Kureshi, CJ).
These appeals are filed by the State Government to challenge the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10th January 2020, in case of
Uttam Malakar and others Vs. State of Tripura in WP(C) No.258/2018
and other connected petitions.
[2] The original petitioners were engaged by Tripura Forest
Development and Plantation Corporation Limited (to be referred to as the
"said Corporation") since 2003-04.
[3] They had filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge
and sought regularization of their services upon completion of 10 years of
service. They had placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in case of
Ranjit Malakar Vs. State of Tripura and Ors. in WP(C) No.290/2017
and in case of Aparna Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors. in WP(C)
No.237/2018. The learned Single Judge found that the facts were identical
and, therefore, issued appropriate directions. Operative portion of the
judgment reads as under :
"10. Having observed thus, the respondents are directed to regularise
the service of the petitioners from the next day of their completion of
ten years of service in the post of Peon/Driver having regard to their
status as Contingent Worker or DRW within a period of three months
Page - 4 of 6
from the date when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order.
The pay and allowances be accordingly determined. In the result, the
writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."
[4] At the outset, we have inquired with the learned Government
Advocate as to what happen to the decision of Single Judge in case of
Ranjit Malakar and Aparna Das. After making detailed inquiry he stated
before us that neither of these judgments has been challenged by the
Corporation or the Government. It would thus emerge that the decisions in
case of Ranjit Malakar and Aparna Das were accepted by the authorities
and implemented without challenge. In our opinion, as long as the facts of
these petitioners are common, the State cannot select their cases for
challenge while deciding to accept the judgment in case of identically
situated employee.
[5] It seems undisputed that the cases of petitioners were similar to
those of Ranjit Malakar and Aparna Das. This was also discussed and
recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment as under :
"6. There is no controversy in respect of the status of the petitioner
either as DRW or as the Contingent Worker (MR worker) and in
respect of their completion of ten years of service on diverse dates as
reflected in the communication dated 31.03.2015. So far the petitioner
in WP(C) No.258 of 2018 namely Uttam Malakar is concerned he had
completed ten years of service on 31.08.2015 [see para-5 of the writ
Page - 5 of 6
petition] or subject to the verification of the records. It is to be noted
that during the course of the submission a certificate dated 11.09.2019
issued by the General Manager, Tripura Forest Development and
Plantation Corporation Limited has been submitted before this court
showing that the said petitioner has been working as DRW(Driver).
7. There cannot be any amount of confusion that all these writ
petitions are substantially covered by the judgments as delivered in
Ranjit Malakar(supra) and Aparna Das(supra). It has been noticed by
this court that the respondent No.5 has clearly stated in the
communication dated 31.03.2015 that total 17 vacancies are available
in the various categories against which the petitioners can be
regularised."
[6] In case of Ranjit Malakar, learned Single Judge had discussed
the issue at length and thereafter given following directions :
"13. The regularisation rules, therefore, be given a pragmatic
interpretation and if they have completed ten years of service and the
regularisation scheme was still alive [see the circular dated 03.01.2014
[Annexure-3 to the writ petition], the petitioner shall be given the
benefit of regularisation as she had completed ten years of service on
01.09.2013, but that was no so done. In the case of Ranjit
Malakar(supra) he had completed his ten years of service on
22.07.2014. Considering that the regularisation scheme was alive on
the day of his completing ten years of service, this court had directed
the respondents to regularise him from the next date when he had
completed ten years of service in the same grade where he had been
working as DRW/MR Worker. The respondents were further directed
that he shall be considered within a period of three months from the
date when he shall submit a copy of the order. As stated earlier, the
respondents have complied this order with all earnestness. The
petitioner is accordingly entitled to the similar benefit.
Page - 6 of 6
14. Hence, the respondents are directed to regularise the services of
the petitioner from the next day of her completion of ten years of
service i.e. 02.09.2013 in the post of Peon and the order in this regard
shall be issued within a period of three months from the date when the
petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order. The pay and allowances
be accordingly determined."
[7] This decision in case of Ranjit Malakar was followed in later
decision in case of Aparna Das. As noted, both the decisions were
accepted by the authorities. The learned Single Judge has thereafter
applied the said decisions to the present petitioners who were similarly
situated, we would not permit the Government to challenge the decision
on selective basis.
In the result, appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands disposed of.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukhendu
