Tripura High Court
Smti. Vaswati Sharma vs The State Of Tripura on 13 May, 2021
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.1325/2019
Smti. Vaswati Sharma, daughter of Maheswar Sharma, wife of Sri Paresh
Ranjan Mahanta, resident of Jail Road, P.O., P.S. & Sub-Division-
Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura, PIN-799250.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Principal Secretary, Government
of Tripura, Department of Urban Development, having his office at
Secretariat Complex, PO- Kunjaban, PS-New Capital Complex, Sub-
Division-Agartala, District:- West Tripura.
2. The Principal Secretary, Government of Tripura, Department of Finance,
having his office at Secretariat Complex, PO-Kunjaban, PS-New Capital
Complex, Sub-Division-Agartala, District:-West Tripura.
3. The Director, Urban Development Department, Government of Tripura,
Khadya O Bhokta Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Gurkhabasti, PO- Kunjaban, Agartala,
District-West Tripura, PIN-799006.
4. The Dharmanagar Municipal Council, West Market Road, Power House
Quarter Complex, PO, PS & Sub-Division-Dharmanagar, District-North
Tripura, PIN-799250, represented by its Chief Executive Officer.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Dharmanagar Municipal Council, West
Market Road, Power House Quarter Complex, PO, PS & Sub-Division-
Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura, PIN-799250.
6. Shri Subhrangshu Paul, son of Sri Nantu Chandra Paul, L.D. Clerk,
Dharmanagar Municipal Council, West Market Road, Power House Quarter
Complex, PO, PS & Sub-Division-Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura,
PIN-799250.
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, Advocate,
Mr. Rajib Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
Date of hearing : 06th May, 2021.
Date of judgment : 13th May, 2021
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
The petitioner has prayed for regularizing her in service w.e.f.
14.02.2002, i.e. on completion of 10 years of service with all consequential
benefits. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
submitted that the expectation of the petitioner is for being granted
regularization w.e.f. 01.07.2008 as provided in office memorandum dated
01.09.2008 issued by the State Government.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as
temporary fixed pay worker (clerical) under an order dated 15.02.1992 by
the Notified Area Authority, Dharmanagar. This Notified Area Authority
was later on upgraded as Dharmanagar Nagar Panchayat and thereafter to
the status of Dharmanagar Municipal Council. All the employees of the
Notified Area Authority automatically became the employees of
Dharmanagar Municipal Council.
3. The petitioner would point out that the Government of Tripura
framed a scheme for regularization of DRW, Casual and Contingent
Workers upon completion of 10 years of service under office memorandum
dated 01.09.2008. This office memorandum provided that the Government
had taken a decision to regularize services of full-time DRW, Casual and
Contingent Workers who had completed 10 years as on 31.03.2008 subject
to fulfillment of certain conditions. The eligible workers would be provided
pay scale in the relevant grade upon their regularization which would take
effect from 01.07.2008. Under a communication dated 30.10.2009 the
Director of Urban Development, Government of Tripura to Chief Executive
Officer/Executive Officers of various Municipal Council and Nagar
Panchayats requested that the proposal for regularization of services of
DRW, Casual and Contingent Workers on completion of 10 years of service
as on 31.03.2008 be sent to the Finance Department for concurrence. From
this communication counsel for the petitioner contends that the
regularization scheme framed by the Government under office memorandum
dated 01.09.2008 was made applicable to the employees of Nagar Panchayat
also.
4. Counsel also pointed out that pursuant to such policy decisions
of the State Government the Nagar Panchayats including Dharmanagar
Nagar Panchayat had initiated steps for regularization of temporary staff
who fulfilled the conditions of regularization. Under an office memorandum
dated 14.12.2012 the Finance Department, Government of Tripura granted
its concurrence for regularization of temporary workers. Accordingly, the
petitioner was regularized by an order dated 20.12.2012 with effect from the
said date. The grievance of the petitioner is that such regularization was
granted prospectively from the date of the order instead of regularizing her
services w.e.f. 01.07.2008 as provided in office memorandum dated
01.09.2008.
5. The petitioner has also relied on the regularization granted to
respondent No.6 Sri Subhrangshu Paul with retrospective effect. According
to the petitioner respondent No.6 was engaged by the Nagar Panchayat after
the entry into service of the petitioner. He was thus junior to her. He was
granted the benefit of retrospective regularization which was denied to the
petitioner.
6. On the other hand, case of the official respondents is that
regularization of daily rated or contingent staff was subject to concurrence
of the Finance Department which was granted only in the year 2012. The
regularization, therefore, cannot be granted with retrospective effect. With
respect to respondent No.6 it is the stand of the official respondents that he
was recruited after a regular selection process but was placed in fixed salary
keeping the vacancy in abeyance for a period of 5 years as per the
Government policy. Upon completion of the period of 5 years after
engagement he was brought over to regular scale. The case of the petitioner,
therefore, is not comparable to that of respondent No.6.
7. Respondent No.6 has also filed an affidavit and produced
certain documents to demonstrate that he was selected on a regular vacancy
after due selection process.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused documents on record, what emerges is that after the Government of
Tripura framed the policy of regularization of DRW, Casual and Contingent
Workers under office memorandum dated 01.09.2008, all Municipal Council
and Nagar Panchayats were asked to provide details of such workers who
fulfilled the eligibility criteria for regularization. After collecting such data
across the State from such Corporations and Panchayats the Finance
Department granted sanction for regularization of eligible workers under
order dated 14.12.2012. Such regularization would be granted subject to
fulfillment of certain criteria laid down in the said office memorandum, one
of them being such DRW, Casual Workers etc. were engaged on or before
31.03.2003 on full-time basis and have completed 10 years of service as on
01.07.2012. This office memorandum also provided that subject to
fulfillment of these conditions the eligible workers would be provided pay
scale in relevant grade in the lowest grade of Group-C or D at entry level
pay scale "from the prospective date of their joining in the regular scale
post".
9. Two things become clear from this office memorandum.
Firstly, that the eligibility criteria was that the DRW, Casual or Contingent
Workers should have been engaged prior to 31.03.2003 and should have
completed 10 years full-time work on 01.07.2012. The cut-off date of
31.03.2008 as envisaged in office memorandum dated 01.09.2008, for the
workers of Municipal Council and Panchayats was shifted to 01.07.2012.
Further, the eligible workers would be provided the pay scale in the entry
level scale from prospective date of joining the regular scale post. This
office memorandum thus did not envisage granting regularization from
retrospective effect. It was pursuant to this office memorandum that the
petitioner's services were regularized under order dated 20.12.2012. The
petitioner cannot seek the benefit of regularization from any date anterior to
the date of order of regularization.
10. For an irregularly engaged worker to seek regularization in
service, there has to be some basis in the nature of scheme framed by the
Government. The claim of regularization can be made only within the four
corners of such a scheme. When comes the question of regularizing the
workers of Municipal Council and Panchayats, concurrence of the Finance
Department will be necessary since it is this department which is responsible
for maintaining fiscal discipline within such organizations. The ability of
Municipal Council and Panchayats to pay regular scales to temporary staff
irrespective of existence of vacancies, will be a relevant consideration.
11. The case of the respondent No.6 was wholly different. In the
affidavit that the said respondent has filed, he has pointed out that the Nagar
Panchayat had issued an advertisement dated 11.12.2004 inviting
applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to several non-gazetted
posts under Dharmanagar Nagar Panchayat, one of them being of Computer
Clerk. The respondent No.6 applied in response to the said post, was called
for and interviewed by the Staff Selection Board on 22.07.2005. It was
thereupon that he was appointed as a Computer Clerk by the Nagar
Panchayat by an order dated 11.12.2006 initially in a fixed pay of Rs.2145/-.
Subsequently, the Government of Tripura granted ex post facto sanction for
creation of one post of Lower Division Clerk under Dharmanagar Municipal
Council by an order dated 01.12.2017 w.e.f. 11.12.2006. It was, therefore,
that upon completion of 5 years of service from initial engagement he was
brought on to regular scale w.e.f. 11.12.2011. He has also pointed out that
the case of the petitioner is vastly different since she was engaged without
any selection process or interview.
12. It can thus be seen that the case of the petitioner is not
comparable to that of respondent No.6. Neither the petitioner has made out
any case independently for being granted regularization with retrospective
effect.
13. The petition is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Pulak
