Tripura High Court
Smt. Maya Rani Paul vs The State Of Tripura on 13 May, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.439/2019
Smt. Maya Rani Paul, W/O - Late Narayan Paul, of village -Ganki, Khowai,
P.S.-Khowai, District-Khowai.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of
Tripura, Education Department, Secretariat Complex, P.O.-Secretariat, P.S.-
New Capital Complex, District-West Tripura, Pin-799006.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Tripura,
Secretariat Complex, P.O.-Secretariat, P.S.- New Capital Complex, District-
West Tripura, Pin-799006.
3. The Director of School Education, Government of Tripura, Estt. N.G.
Section, 34 Office Lane, Agartala, Tripura.
4. Deputy Director of District Education Office, Subhash Park, Khowai,
Tripura-799202.
5. Inspector of School of Khowai, Khowai, District-Khowai Tripura, Pin-
799202.
6. Sri Bishu Tanti, Group-D Night Guard, ST-Boy's Hostel attached to
Khowai H.S. School, Khowai, District-Khowai Tripura-799202.
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Ghosh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Majumder, 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 directing the respondents to treat
her service as full-time daily rated worker (Group-D) w.e.f. 01.12.2012.
2. Brief facts are as under:
The petitioner was initially engaged as a part-time contingent
worker for two hours daily under the Inspector of Schools at Khowai w.e.f.
22.09.1980. She was assigned the duties of sweeping the office building and
for carrying drinking water for the staff. She continued to discharge such
duties uninterruptedly year after year. On 07.11.2012 the Government of
Tripura issued an office memorandum which provided that all part-time
workers working in different departments of the Government for 2, 3 or 4
hours and were engaged on or before 31.03.2003 and who had completed 10
years of service would be engaged as daily workers (DRW Group-D) w.e.f.
01.12.2012 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. According to the
petitioner, she should have been granted the benefit of the said office
memorandum and she should have been made a full-time DRW. According
to the petitioner, her office had also made proposal to Finance Department
for converting her service into full-time service. However, for some
unknown reason the same was not granted. She finally made a representation
on 01.06.2018 and requested the respondents to grant her benefit of full-time
servant. This was also not done. She, therefore, filed this petition.
3. The respondents have appeared and filed reply in which the
stand taken is that the petitioner has already crossed the age of
superannuation of 60 years and has been released w.e.f. 30.06.2017 and that
the proposal for converting her service into full-time engagement was never
forwarded to the department by her unit.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused documents on record, the stand taken by the respondents to oppose
the prayer of the petitioner is not valid. Because the petitioner by now has
crossed the age of superannuation, does not mean that at the relevant time
she was not entitled to the benefit of the office memorandum dated
07.11.2012. This office memorandum, as noted, clearly envisages
conversion of part-time workers into full-time engagement provided they
were engaged prior to 31.03.2003 and had completed 10 years of service on
01.12.2012. The defence of the respondent No.3 that the office where the
petitioner was engaged did not send the proposal for the purpose of
engagement on full-time basis is also not a valid one. The petitioner was a
poorly paid part-time worker who continued to sweep the floors and fill
water for the staff for decades together. If a unit did not send her name for
engagement on full-time basis, the petitioner should not be made to suffer.
She obviously neither had wherewithal nor full understanding of this
Government scheme. Rather unfortunately, however, this issue has come
before the High Court after the petitioner has been released upon crossing
the age of superannuation. The only benefit that she would have got under
the said office memorandum dated 07.11.2012 was of full-time engagement
and pay commensurate with such full-time engagement. When she has not
rendered full-time service, she cannot be compensated fully for the entire
period during which she lost the opportunity to render full-time service and
consequently earn full-time wages. Under the circumstances, while not
granting the prayer made by the petitioner by way of lump sum
compensation it is directed that the respondents shall pay a sum of
Rs.25,000/-. This shall be done within four weeks from today.
5. Petition is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Pulak
