Tripura High Court

Sanju Rani Das vs The State Of Tripura on 8 March, 2022

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA

                             WP(C)No.732 of 2021
                             WP(C)No.733 of 2021

In WP(C)No.732 of 2021

Sanju Rani Das,
wife of Sri Subal Chandra Paul,
resident of Shibnagar, P.O. College Tilla,
West Tripura, Professor Colony, Agartala

                                                           ............ Petitioner(s)

                                  -Versus-

1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Government of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, Pin-799010,
New Secretariat Complex, Agartala, District-West Tripura

2. The SWAVALAMBAN
(a Society for Promotion of Self Employment Activities)
represented by its Nodal Officer,
SWAVALAMBAN Training Institute, A.D. Nagar,
Agartala, Tripura, Pin-799003 ),

3. The Nodal Officer,
Swavalamban
(a Society for Promotion of Self Employment Activities),
Swavalamban Training Institute,
A.D. Nagar, Agartala, Tripura, Pin-799003

4. Dreamz Services,
(A house of Manpower Services),
Nutannagar, Co-operative, Agartala, Tripura(West)

5. Smt. Shipra Acharjee

6. Smt. Ratna Acharjee

7. Sri Debabrata Das

8. Sri Suman Sarkar
                                         Page 2 of 8




     Respondents No.5, 6, 7and 8 who are sweeping, cleaning and unskilled workers)

are in the address of care of Nodal Officer, Swavalamban Society for Promotion of Self Employment Activities, Swavalamban Training Institute, A.D. Nagar, Agartala, District-West Tripura

............ Respondent(s)

In WP(C)No.733 of 2021

Sri Manik Chandra Mallik, son of late Sarada Mallik, resident of Madhya Charipara, P.O. Charipara, District-West Tripura, Pin-799003 ............ Petitioner(s)

-Versus-

1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, Pin-799010, New Secretariat Complex, Agartala, District-West Tripura

2. The SWAVALAMBAN (a Society for Promotion of Self Employment Activities) represented by its Nodal Officer, SWAVALAMBAN Training Institute, A.D. Nagar, Agartala, Tripura, Pin-799003 ),

3. The Nodal Officer, Swavalamban (a Society for Promotion of Self Employment Activities) represented by its Nodal Officer, A.D. Nagar, Agartala, Tripura, Pin-799003

4. Dreamz Services, (A house of Manpower Services), Nutannagar, Co-operative, Agartala, Tripura(West)

5. Smt. Shipra Acharjee

6. Smt. Ratna Acharjee

7. Sri Debabrata Das

8. Sri Suman Sarkar

Respondents No.5, 6, 7and 8 who are sweeping, cleaning and unskilled workers) are in the address of care of Nodal Officer, Swavalamban Society for Promotion of Self Employment Activities, Swavalamban Training Institute, A.D. Nagar, Agartala, District-West Tripura

............ Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Sinha, Adv.

For Respondent(s)                 :        Mr. S. Saha, Adv.
Date of Hearing and
Judgment & Order                  :        08.03.2022

Whether fit for reporting         :        NO


                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

                            JUDGMENT & ORDER(Oral)

As both the writ petitions being WP(C)No.732 of 2021 [Sri Sanju

Rani Das versus State of Tripura and Others] & WP(C)No.733 of 2021 [Sri

Manik Chandra Mallik versus State of Tripura and Others] are set up in the

common perspective fact and reliefs, those are combined for disposal by a

common judgment.

2. The petitioners joined their services on 09.06.2003 as Daily

Rated Workers under the respondent No.2, a Society for Promotion of Self

Employment Activities. The said society is attached to the Swavalamban

Training Institute. In the year 2008, the Swavalamban was handed over to

the Rural Development Department. The petitioners have claimed that the

Member Secretary of the said society had engaged the petitioners on the day

as aforementioned. On 02.07.2018, the petitioners submitted a

representation to the Finance Minister, Government of Tripura for enhancing

their wages and regularisation of their service. But all on a sudden, the

respondent authority stopped the payment of wages of the petitioners and

other DRWs for six month in January, 2020. In the first week of July, 2020

the respondents paid all held-up wages and but prevented them from

attending duty and put attendance/signature in the attendance register and

thus they have been discontinued from their engagements from July, 2020

without showing any reason and without issuance of the order. It has been

witnessed by the petitioners that on 03.07.2020, the Nodal Officer invited

sealed quotations from Man power Agencies/Firms for providing sweeping

and cleaning personnel and the office attendants for all working days for the

Swavalamban Society, A.D. Nagar.

3. From the Notice Inviting Quotations under

No.1(25)/NO/SWA/2003/P/331-35 dated 03.07.2020 [Annexure-4 to the writ

petition], it would be apparent that the said notice was floated for selecting

the Man Power Agency for supplying sweeping and cleaning staffs and office

attendants in which places the petitioners were so far working on casual

basis. It is evident from the order of engagement of Man Power Firm as

issued on 24.08.2020 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] that one firm called

Dreamz Services has been selected for providing those services as reflected

in the Notice Inviting Quotations dated 03.07.2020. It further appears that

some of the petitioners filed a writ petition in the year 2020[see Annexure-6

to the writ petition] but the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to

file a fresh writ petition.

4. Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

submitted that the petitioners have served more than 16 years and as such,

the respondents No.2 and 3 have the obligation to regularise their services.

He has also stated that pending such regularisation, the petitioners' casual

employment should be protected.

5. Per contra, Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.2 on instruction of Ms. N. Chakma(Saha), learned counsel has

robustly contended that the petitioners were engaged for discharging casual

works but not as DRW. Their services were utilised since 09.06.2003 as per

verbal order of the respondent No.3. Their wages were paid on piecemeal

basis. In para-7 of the reply filed by the respondent No.2, it has been averred

that the workers perform the works as on when required basis and the

respondent No.2 had paid their wages against their work. As the policy of the

respondent No.2 has been changed, such casual services have been

outsourced and accordingly, one man power Agency has been selected and

they have been given the responsibility of engaging the Man Power required

for various services under the respondent No.2.

6. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has referred to the representation of

the petitioners including one Smti. Harmila Uchai. Smt. Harimal Uchai and

Uchai and Others versus State of Tripura and Others] which was

disposed of by the order dated 23.02.2022. In the said writ petition, the

similar reliefs were asked by those petitioners.

The content of the said representation [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed

by the respondent No.2] is material as the petitioners have urged the Nodal

Officer of the respondent No.2 to give them the wages at the rate as entitled

to the Daily Rated Workers [DRW]. It thus transpires that the petitioners

were aware that they were not DRWs.

In Smt. Harmila Uchai (supra) this court has observed as follows :

"06. Having appreciated the submission of the counsel for the parties and scrutinized the documents, this court is of the view that the petitioner have failed to substantiate that they were working as the Daily Rated Worker/Contingent Workers in the Government departments for which the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 and the subsequent memorandum dated 21.01.2009 [Annexures 2 & 3 respectively to the writ petition] were framed. In absence of any document for showing the continuous service as DRW/Contingent/Casual Workers for a period of more than ten years in the Government departments, nobody can ask for any benefit under the policy as declared by those memoranda. As such, the prayer of the petitioner, for regularization, for absence of the required materials and proof, same stands dismissed. The petitioner could not produce the terms of their engagements. As such, the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to continue in such capacity. But a Society which has been working for the benefit of the people, particularly for promotion of self-employment activities is not expected to disengage the petitioners in the manner they have done so. The Society should have taken a sincere effort,

even if, they have introduced the outsourcing of services for deploying the petitioners through the said outsourcing agencies or to keep the petitioners on some services beyond the pale of the agreement for out- sourcing. But they have not done so. It is not a matter of compassion, it is completely a matter of approach how to deal with new situation, particularly when the petitioners have worked in their Society for more than ten years. Unfortunately, the court cannot intervene in such matter. Therefore, the respondents are asked to consider the aspect so that the petitioners may get some engagement for livelihood, even through the outsourcing agency which has been providing several services in the Society. The respondents will be at their discretion to consider whether the petitioners can be provided job so that they can live as they do not have any other livelihood as stated by Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel. Such consideration be made expeditiously."

7. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Harmila Uchai was among the

six casual workers who were engaged by the respondent No.2 and she was

circumstanced by any yardstick like the petitioners. Hence, there cannot be

any different opinion by this court. From the decision as returned in Smt.

Harmila Uchai(supra).

For the same reasonings, the respondents are asked to consider the

aspect of disengagement with compassion so that the petitioners may get

some engagement for livelihood, even if, it may be through the outsourcing

agency which has been providing several services in the society. The

respondents will be at their discretion to consider whether the petitioners can

be provided job to enable them to live a descent life as they do not have any

other livelihood. Such consideration shall be made expeditiously.