Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura And Ors vs Sri Upendra Tripura And Anr on 12 December, 2022
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No. 153 of 2022
The State of Tripura and Ors.
...Appellants
Vs
Sri Upendra Tripura and Anr.
...Respondents
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate
Mr. K. Nath, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Order
12/12/2022
Heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the
appellants-State. Also heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
writ petitioners.
The writ petitioners, respondents herein have filed the writ
petition claiming regularization of their services. They have pleaded in
the writ petition that they were first appointed as Casual Worker under
the State-respondents, appellants herein in the year 2007. Thereafter, in
the year 2010, they were appointed/engaged as Daily Rated Worker.
The Government of Tripura had introduced various schemes
for regularization of the services of the DRWs/Casual/Contingent
Workers. The claim of the writ petitioners is that they came within the
purview of the schemes. The schemes clearly postulate that if a
DRW/Casual/Contingent Worker completes 10 years of continuous
service, then, his/her service would be regularized.
The main contention of the State-respondents, appellant
herein is that the petitioners completed their services in the year 2021,
when all the schemes for regularization of the services of such
DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers were repealed in the year 2018. The
second-fold of submission as advanced by Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. GA
is that the employees of Ekalavya Model Residential School do not come
within the purview of the scheme. However, later on, he clarified that the
entire case roams around the scheme, which is adopted by the respondent-
Institution run by the State of Tripura, as mentioned in para 9 of the
counter affidavit.
So, only contention of the State-respondents remains to the
question whether the petitioners completed their services as Casual and
Daily Rated Workers (DRWs) in the year 2021 or 2017.
We have perused the entire records. It is an admitted position
that the petitioners were first appointed in the year 2007 as Casual
Worker, and in the year 2010 they were appointed/engaged as DRW. The
schemes for regularization were made applicable for both
Casual/Contingent/Daily Rated Workers and not only for Daily Rated
Workers. The service rendered by the petitioners cannot be separated
from services as Daily Rated Worker (DRW). The period the petitioners
served as Casual Workers, under the scheme, must be accounted to the
period of service of the petitioners as DRWs. Be that as it may, the
petitioners have completed 10 years of service in the year 2017 and as
such, they come within the purview of the schemes for regularization
formulated by the Government of Tripura before the schemes were
repealed in the year 2018. In other words, the petitioners completed 10
years of service during the existence of those schemes for regularization.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge are affirmed and upheld. Accordingly,
the appeal stands dismissed. The respondents are directed to complete the
entire process of regularization of the petitioners within a period of 3
(three) months from the date the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this
order to the appellant-State respondents.
JUDGE JUDGE
Snigdha
