High Court Of Tripura vs For The
2022 Latest Caselaw 968 Tri

                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                         WA 107 /2022
For the Appellant(s)         :       Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) :   Mr. M. Debbarma, Additional GA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY Order 18/11/2022 Heard Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional GA appearing for the respondent.

The instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2022 passed by a learned single Judge of this High Court in case no. WP(C) 198 of 2021.

The writ petition was dismissed with the following observations: "Accordingly, considering the arguments of both sides, the present writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as and when any scheme in the above parameter is issued once again. The respondents shall further consider the case of the petitioner on priority basis since the petitioner is having long standing from the year 2010."

It is submitted that the petitioner has been serving the department since 1994 and, she approached the court for regularization of her service in the year 2021. Between this intervening period, some policies were framed by the government for regularization of DRWs/ Contingent workers/ Casual workers etc. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that the petitioner was not appointed through established norms of employment. Moreover, the petitioner was not appointed in terms of the judgment of State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, which clearly deprecated the concept of appointment on pick and choose policy. More so, all the earlier policies containing the mode of regularization of the Casual/ DRW/ Contingent Workers had already been repealed by the Government and those are not in vogue.

Only in the year 2021, the petitioner has approached for regularization when all the policies were withdrawn, as we have said earlier. Moreover, the writ petition badly suffers from the established doctrine of delay and latches as all on a sudden after elapse of so many years, the petitioner woke up from the slumber and has ventilated her grievance by filing writ petition. According to us, the case of the petitioner cannot be reopened. As such, we find no error in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. However, the direction given by the learned single Judge may be complied with as and when situation so arises.

                        JUDGE                                      JUDGE




Saikat