The State Of Tripura vs The State Of Tripura And
2021 Latest Caselaw 855 Tri

                                     Page - 1 of 4

                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                                 WA No. 249 of 2021

1.     The State of Tripura,
represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Education (Higher) Department, Civil Secretariat, Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. East Agartala, Dist. West Tripura, Pin-799006.
2.    The Director of Higher Education,
Government of Tripura, Old Secretariat Complex, P.O. Agartala, Dist. West Tripura.
3.     Secretary, Finance Department,
Govt. of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Gorkha Basti, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East
Agartala, Dist. West Tripura.
4.     Principal,
Tripura Institute of Technology, Narsingarh, P.O. and P.S. Airport, Pin-799009, Dist.
West Tripura.

                                                            ............... Appellant(s).
                                     Vrs.
1.      Sri Litan Bardhan,
S/o Lt. Rati Bardhan, resident of Narayanpur, P.O. and P.S. Airport, Dist. West Tripura.
2.      Sri Ajit Das,
S/o Lt. Umesh Ch. Das, resident of Alanganagar, P.O. and P.S. Airport, Dist. West
Tripura.
3.      Sri Swapan Biswas,
S/o Sri Kanai Biswas, resident of Narshinghar, South Bahadhi, P.O. and P.S. Airport,
Dist. West Tripura.
                                                             ............ Respondent(s).

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY For Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. Govt. Advocate.

              For Respondent(s)             : None.
              Date of hearing and
              Judgment & Order              : 7th September, 2021.
              Whether fit for reporting     : NO.


                         JUDGMENT AND ORDER(Oral)

(Akil Kureshi, CJ)

This appeal arise out of the common judgment of the learned

Single Judge dated 5.7.2021 in W.P(c) No.210 of 2021 and W.P(c) No.211 of

2021.

Page - 2 of 4

[2] The petitioners were engaged as Casual Workers by Tripura

Institute of Technology. They had filed the petitions seeking regularization in

terms of a Government Scheme dated 21.01.2009. Their prayer was resisted by

the Government. The learned Single Judge referred to several earlier cases of

similar nature where the Single Judges as well as Division Benches had granted

such relief to the petitioners therein. In particular, reference was made to a

decision of the Single Judge in W. P(c) No.201 of 2020 where the petitioner

concerned was a Casual Worker of Polytechnic Institute which was later on

renamed as Tripura Institute of Technology. In the said judgment referring to

and relied upon the earlier decision of the Court, following observations were

made:

"...The main stand taken by the respondents in a detailed affidavit dated 11.09.2020 is that the petitioners were engaged under a centrally funded scheme therefore they are not entitled to be regularized. With respect to the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No.229 of 2015, in case of Sri Sajal Kar and others vs. The State of Tripura and others, the respondents contend that those petitioners, who were engaged prior to 31.03.2003 whereas both the petitioners in the present case have been engaged after the said date. The relevance of the said cutoff date of 31.03.2003 is sought to be projected on the basis of the Memorandum dated 21.01.2009 issued by the Government of Tripura in which after laying down the terms for regularization of casual workers and DRWs, it has been further provided as under:

"3. There shall be a complete ban on engagement of DRW/Casual/Contingent etc. workers after 31.3.2003 without concurrence from Finance Department. Responsibility shall be fixed on the official found responsible for any irregular engagement henceforth. Such irregular engagement shall have to be instantly terminated. The wages, if paid any, shall be recovered from the official concerned."

To my mind, there is no material distinction in the facts of the present petition as compared to those involved in the case of Sri Sajal Kar and others (supra). The learned Single Judge was also confronted with a question of the casual labourers being engaged under a Scheme which incidentally was the same Scheme under which the present petitioners have been engaged. In the said decision, it was observed as under:

Page - 3 of 4

"19. The benevolent scheme for regularisation of such casual workers cannot be frustrated by the technical approach of this nature, rather, it should be read liberally else there would be great injustice. Hence, it is necessary that the petitioners are considered for regularisation under the scheme as reflected by the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 read with the memorandum dated 03.01.2014 as stated.

20. It has clearly transpired that the petitioners have always been treated as the casual worker of Polytechnic Institute, now the Tripura Institute of Technology and their services were accordingly realised. Still they are so working. Even similarly circumstanced person, namely Dipak Das who has been regularised, was also the casual worker of the Community Polytechnic. Thus, the difference as had been made between Dipak Das and the petitioners is not based on intelligible differentia for purpose of relegating the mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioners are entitled to be considered by the respondents for regularisation under the memorandum dated 01.09.2008, as amended from time to time.

21. Having held so, the respondents are directed to consider the regularisation of the petitioners in terms of the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure-R/1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents) read with the memorandum dated 03.01.2014 (Annexure P18 to the writ petition) and such consideration shall be made within a period of 3(three) months from today, in supercession of the communication dated 01.07.2014 (AnnexureP/23 of the writ petition).

22. In the result the writ petition is allowed to be extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs."

The said decision of the learned Single Judge was tested before the Division Bench and the Writ Appeal was dismissed. The decision was also implemented and the concerned workers have been regularized. The sole distinction sought to be drawn by the State Government that the present petitioners, were engaged after 31.03.2003 in comparison to the other employees, who were regularized, who were engaged before 31.03.2003 is also in the context of the present case not valid. Paragraph-3 of the O.M. dated 21.01.2019 merely provides that there will be a ban on engagement of DRW or Casual or Contingent workers after 31.03.2003 without the concurrence of the Finance Department. This clause cannot be enforced to deny the benefit of the Scheme of regularization in favour of the petitioners when they were admittedly engaged under centrally funded Scheme. It was not a case where in defiance of the fiscal discipline sought to be imposed by the State Government, the concerned unit or the institute engaged casual workers at its own will. It is a case where under an ongoing centrally funded scheme, the petitioners were Page - 4 of 4

engaged for casual work and such casual engagement went on almost unabated for years together."

[3] In view of such series of orders passed by the learned Single

Judges and Division Benches of this Court, we do not fine any error in view of

the learned Single Judge that the petitioners were required to be given the benefit

of regularization scheme.

[4] Learned Govt. Advocate, however, drew our attention to the final

directions issued in the impugned judgment where for the purpose of

regularization the reference is to a scheme dated 1.9.2008. We are not sure how,

this date has crept in the judgment. As noted, the petitioners had sought the

benefit of regularization scheme of the Government dated 21.01.2009. Neither

the petitioners nor the respondents have referred to any other scheme dated

1.9.2008. We are not even sure, if there exists any such scheme. Under the

circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge always

desired that the petitioners be regularized in terms of the Government scheme

dated 21.01.2009. If there is any difficulty, the State can always seek

clarification before the Single Judge.

[5] With these observations, this appeal is dismissed. Pending

application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY),J. (AKIL KURESHI),CJ.

Dipankar