Tripura High Court
Present vs For The on 6 September, 2021
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 121 OF 2021
Sri Swadin Chandra Pal
Vrs.
The State of Tripura & 2 Ors.
Present:
For the petitioner (s) : Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), Advocate.
For the respondent (s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
06.09.2021
Order
Heard Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for
the State-respondents.
Shortly stated, the petitioner was engaged as casual worker
under the respondents which is revealed from a certificate dated 07.10.2002
[Annexure-1 to the writ petition]. Thereafter by dint of Govt. circulars,
process of regularization was taken up. There is no dispute that the
engagement of the petitioner as casual worker had financial concurrence of
Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura. The competent authority under
whom the petitioner has been working forwarded the name of the petitioner
for regularization of his service since he has been working as casual worker
under the respondents from 2002.
Inviting my attention to a forwarding letter dated 13.06.2014
[Annexure-3 to the writ petition], Mrs. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel has
submitted that one Sri Sankar Acharjee who was similarly situated with the
petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court claiming regularization
of his service.
I have seen the relevant judgment of this court passed in
WP(C) 98 of 2019, titled as Sankar Acharjee Vrs. The State of Tripura &
Ors. wherein learned single bench of this court had considered the issue in
the manner as follows:-
"13. In the result, the sole objection of the respondents to
regularizing the petitioner that he was a contractual worker and not a
casual worker is overruled. The respondents shall give a benefit of the
scheme flowing from the office memorandum dated 21.01.2009 and grant
regularization to the petitioner subject to fulfillment of the conditions
from the due date of completion of 10 years of service. This shall be done
within a period of one month from today. The period between the date of
regularization till date would be notional benefits to the petitioner.
Actual difference in salary would be paid prospectively from the date of
regularization."
Being dissatisfied, the State-respondents had preferred intra
court appeal before the Division Bench of this Court which was registered
as WA No.27 of 2020. While dismissing the said writ appeal, the Division
Bench had observed and held at Para 6 of the judgment read as follows:-
6. Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that there is
marked distinction between the term 'casual employee' and 'the contract
basis worker'. Mr. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that the
terms and condition of such employment would be governed and guided
by terms of contract by which the employee is engaged. We have given a
serious consideration to the said submission and find it difficult to
persuade ourselves to accept the said interpretation of the word 'Casual'
vis-à-vis 'Contractual'. Every engagement is guided by some contract of
engagement whether it is Casual, DRW or Contingent worker. For
example, the contract of the employment for the DRW is very clear that
unless they work they will not be paid any wage. To denote the
distinction between the 'Casual' and the 'Contingent' Workers require
no further exercise. Mere variation or change in the nomenclature or
term in respect of engagement, cannot deprive a person from getting the
benefit of regularization, as provided by the said scheme, casual,
contingent and DRW fall in the similar category. All can be generally
described as casual employees. We clarify further that the policy of the
state government is very categorical if the full-time employees of that
category completed the tenure, the benefit of regularization be extended
to him.
Hence, we do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the decision
of learned single judge."
The present case also involves similar and identical question
of facts, and the petitioner deserves to get similar treatment as that of Sri
Sankar Acharjee. Thus, I have no reason to take a different view.
In view of the above, non consideration of the regularization
of the service of the petitioner of the instant writ petition also is arbitrary
and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.
Accordingly, I direct the respondents to give the benefit of the
scheme flowing from the office memorandum dated 21.01.2009 and grant
regularization of the service of the petitioner in the post he held subject to
fulfillment of the conditions from the due date of completion of 10 years of
service. This shall be done within a period of one month from today. The
period between the date of regularization till date would be notional
benefits to the petitioner. Actual difference in salary would be paid
prospectively from the date of regularization.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ
petition stands disposed.
JUDGE
