Tripura High Court
Smti. Mandhadari Rupini vs The State Of Tripura on 7 May, 2021
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.108 OF 2021
Smti. Mandhadari Rupini
W/o Sri Biswajit Debbarma,
Resident of North Joy Nagar,
P.O. Birendranagar, P.S. Jirania
Dist. West Tripura
Pin-799045.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Tripura
Represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Tripura
Forest Department
Agartala.
2. The State of Tripura
Representated by the Secretary to the
Government of Tripura,
Finance Department
Agartala.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Government of Tripura
Aranya Bhaban, Pt. Nehru Complex Agartala
P.S. East Agartala
4. The Deputy Conservator of Forest(HQ)
Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Aranya Bhaban. Pt. Nehru Complex, Agartala
P.S. East Agartala.
5. The Managing Director
Tripura Forest Development and Plantation
Corporation Limited.
Registered Office, Abhoynagar, Agartala.
Dist-West Tripura, Pin-799005.
6. Divisional Manger
Tripura Forest Development and Plantation
Corporation Limited.
Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8
Registered Office, Abhoynagar, Agartala
Dist- West Tripura, PIN 799005.
---- Respondents.
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Bannerjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T.K. Chowdhury, Advocate
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 07.05.2021.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
Heard Mr. B. Bannerjee, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner as well as Mr. T.K. Chowdhury, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of filing the instant writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for regularisation of her service under
respondents-Tripura Forest Development and Plantation
Corporation Ltd., (in short, „TFDPC‟).
3. The brief facts are that, the petitioner was appointed as
Group-D (Peon) on 08.06.2003. She belongs to Scheduled Tribe
community. The respondent No.2 issued one memorandum vide
No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 21.01.2009 regarding
regularisation of Daily Rated Workers/Casual/Contingent
Workers on their completion of 10 years of their service. The
respondent-TFDPC Ltd., after introduction of the scheme for
regularisation in the year 2009 as aforestated had made many
correspondences with the Finance Department, Government of
Tripura for regularisation of the service of the petitioner along
with other DRWs since they were found eligible under the
scheme introduced by Government of Tripura dated 21.01.2009.
It is revealed from the 143rd meeting of the Board of Directors of
TFDPC Ltd., which was held on 02.06.2015 in presence of the
Board Members whereof resolution was taken for post-facto
approval for engagement of the DRWs. It is stated thus:-
"The Board deliberated in detail in this matter & approved & granted post-facto
approval in respect of engagement of the following persons:-
Sl. Name Date of Birth Date of SC/ST/U Amount of Nature of
No Engagement as R wages paid job being
DRW performed
01 Sri Ranjit 28.06.1969 23.07.2004 SC Rs.167.44/- Driver
Malakar Per Day
02. Sri Nirmal 27.11.1985 01.03.2004 UR Rs.167.44/- Driver
Malakar Per Day
03. Sri Subrata 25.05.1980 01.03.2004 UR Rs.144.35/- Peon
Singha Per Day
04. Smt. 01.01.1980 08.06.2003 ST Rs.144.35/- Peon
Mandadha Per Day
ri Rupini
05. Smt. 10.02.1973 02.09,2003 SC Rs.144.35/- Peon
Aparna Per Day
Das
4. The said resolution was communicated to the Deputy
Conservator of Forest (HQ) Office of the PCCF, Government of
Tripura, vide communication dated 23.06.2015 (Annexure-6 to
the writ petition).
5. In the meantime, one Ranjit Malakar had approached
the High Court by way of filling a writ petition for regularisation
of his service as he came within the purview of the scheme
dated 21.01.2009. This Court while disposing of the writ petition
being numbered as WP(C) No.290 of 2017 had made the
following observations:-
"10. As there is no dispute that the petitioner was engaged as
DRW on 23.07.2004, which day had been categorically admitted by the
respondents in para 5 of their reply, the other pertinent point that has
emerged in course of the deliberation is as under:
(i)Whether the petitioner can be regularized in terms of the memorandum
dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure R-3 to the reply filed by the respondents).
In paragraph 5 of the reply, the respondents have taken a stand affirmed by
affidavit that even the Finance Department concurred the engagement of the
DRWs. On that premise, by the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 those
persons can be regularized. However, regarding interpretation, this court will
definitely will not be guided by the averments made in the reply. But this is a
conscious stand taken by the respondents. That apart, what has been
submitted by Ms. Lodh, learned Additional GA that by virtue of the
notification dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure R-3 to the reply), the petitioner‟s
service cannot be regularized. In this regard, this court in Dharamjit Singha vs.
State of Tripura [judgment dated 12.07.2017 delivered in WP(C) 1086 of
2016] has observed as under:
"12.To a query to this court, Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel has fairly
admitted that those who were appointed as DRW/Casual/Contingent workers
without concurrence from the Finance Department before 31.03.2003 were
en bloc regularised. By virtue of the casual employment for more than ten
years and for fulfilling all criteria as laid down in the memorandum dated
21.01.2009, the petitioner being in the same class like those who were
engaged before 31.03.2003. The question therefore now arises is that when
the petitioner was permitted to work for more than ten years and he is still
continuing and further that when he has been paid from the government fund
whether the respondents can deny his status as the casual employee. In such
circumstances, this court would have deemed concurrence from the Finance
Department but even if such concurrence is not deemed when the casual
employees having the similar background have been considered for
regularization, the petitioner has been denied only for his appointment being
after 31.03.2003. In the perspective, whether the said cutoff date is rational
or not is considered by this court. The government policy is very clear from the
said memorandum dated 21.01.2009 where it has been clearly provided that
the government has taken a policy decision to regularize the services of the
full time DRW/Casual/Contingent workers from the next date of completion
of ten years of service.
13. It is evident further that the concurrence of the Finance Department was
waived for that class of employees for purpose of age and qualification. The
cutoff date therefore according to the respondents has created a special
class. It is well settled that unless the cutoff date is shown to be capricious or
whimsical, the court does usually provide leeway in favour of the law-makers.
But such classification on the basis of that cutoff date shall be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes a person or things that are grouped
together from those who are left out of that zone and the differentia must
have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the policy. (In re
the Special Courts Bill, 1978 reported in (1979) 1 SCC 380).
14. True it is that the court should not insist on delusive exactness or apply a
doctrinaire test for determining the validity of classification in any given case.
When the classification is justified, if it is not palpably arbitrary, the principal
underlying the guarantee of Article-14 is not that the same rules should be
applicable to all persons or that same remedy should be made available to
them irrespective of difference of circumstances. It only means that all
persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges
conferred and liabilities imposed. It has been clearly held in Special Courts Bill
(supra) that : "There should not be any discrimination between one person
and another, if as regards the subject matter of the legislation their position is
substantially the same."
15. The subject matter of the legislation and the object sought to be achieved
can be availed from the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 where it has been
clearly stated that the government has taken a policy decision to regularize
the services of the full time DRW/Casual/Contingent workers from the next
date of completion of ten years of service. From a reading of the
memorandum dated 21.01.2009, it would be apparent that the government
has insisted to regularize those persons having the similar status but if
anyone is engaged after that day i.e. 31.03.2003, their case could be
differentiated if they were not allowed to complete the ten years of service.
Even the government has subsequently framed a policy to regularize the part
time workers to DRWs on completion of ten years of service much after
31.03.2003. Therefore, the subject matter of the policy is completion of ten
years of service in the casual employment. The objective is to achieve
regularization for those persons who have completed ten years of service
thus. By setting up a cutoff date, the persons having similar status cannot be
discriminated. A welfare government is also bound to give protection of the
employment. Cut off date is different subject matter and in different contexts
may have substantially different impact. Since the respondents did not
contest that the petitioner was allowed to continue as the contingent worker
for more than ten years, this court does not find any reason why the benefits
as provided by the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 should not be extended to
the petitioner as well. A welfare government is not expected to take a hyper
technical view. But this court does not find any rationality in setting up of a
cut off date for completely banning such casual employment to a person. The
government has taken a commendable step by giving those
casual/contingent employees protection of their service. According to the
court, such benefit shall be granted to the petitioner as well. After working for
such a long time if a person is thrown out of the job for any reason or even if
he does not have the protection of the regularization, it would be a great peril
for his dignified survival."
Similar view has also been taken by this court in Ajit Debnath
vs. State of Tripura and others [judgment dated 23.06.2017 delivered in
WP(C) 1255 of 2016]"
6. Thereafter, this Court in Para-13 of WP(C) No.237 of
2018 titled as Smti. Aparna Das Vs. The State of Tripura
and Ors., had held thus:-
"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 [seen 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."
7. In the case in hand also, the petitioner had completed
her 10 years of service as revealed from Note No.1 (Annexure-
11 to the writ petition) on 07.06.2013 as Peon. In reference to
the judgment of Ranjit Malakar [WP(C) No.290 of 2017], the
Managing Director , TFDPC Ltd., again requested the Finance
Department, Government of Tripura to consider the
regularisation of the following persons given in the tabular
form:-
Sl. Name Date of Birth Date of Date of SC/ST/UR Nature of
No. Engagement Completion of Job
As DRW 10 years Performed
01. Sri Nirmal 27.11.1985 01.03.2004 28.02.2014 UR Driver
Malakar
02. Sri Subrata 25.05.1980 01.03.2004 28.02.2014 UR Peon
Singha
03. Smt. 01.01.1980 08.06.2003 07.06.2013 ST Peon
Mandadha
ri Rupini
04. Smt. 10.02.1973 02.09.2003 01.09.2013 SC Peon
Aparna Das
05. Sri Uttam 01.08.1985 01.09.2005 31.08.2015 SC Gr-D
Malakar
The name of the petitioner is visibly found to be
appeared at Sl. No.3 of the said table. But, the State
respondents had only implemented the order of the High Court
in regularising the service of Sri Ranjit Malakar, the writ
petitioner in WP(C) No.290 of 2017 and others were left out.
8. Thereafter, Sri Uttam Malakar also filed a writ petition
and this Court also had issued a direction for regularisation of his
service.
9. In view of this, and keeping in mind the repeated
correspondences made by the TFDPC Ltd., to the Finance
Department Government of Tripura for regularisation of the
service of the, petitioner-Smt. Mandhadari Rupini who fulfilled
the eligibility criteria under the scheme of 2009, I direct the
respondents to pass necessary order for regularisation of her
service under the respondents-TFDPC Ltd. The entire process of
the regularisation of the petitioner-Smt Mandhadari Rupini shall
be completed within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of the copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be
entitled to get arrears of pay for preceding three years from the
date of filing of the writ petition.
10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands
allowed and disposed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
