Present vs For The
2022 Latest Caselaw 990 Tri

                                 Page 1 of 3




                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                             WP(C) 410 OF 2021

   Sri Milan Kumar Chowdhury Vrs. The State of Tripura & 5 Ors.

Present:
    For the petitioner (s)    : Mr. B. Banerjee, Advocate.

    For the respondent (s)    : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, G.A.

Mr. P. Saha, Advocate.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH 28.11.2022 Order

Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as part-time worker under the Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Ltd. (for short, TFDPC) in the year 2005. Record speaks that the petitioner was not appointed following the established norms of employment as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In State of Karnataka & Ors. Vrs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1,it was held that those irregularly appointed employees may be regularized and for that purpose, all the State Governments were directed to frame schemes. According to the case of Uma Devi (supra), the persons who completed 10 years of service till the date of judgment i.e. 10.04.2006, only for those employees, schemes had to be framed.

The petitioner completed 10 years of service in the year 2015. The Government of Tripura has formulated schemes first in the year 2009

for regularization of those irregularly appointed employees. On 31.07.2018, the State Government had repealed all the schemes. The petitioner could not approach this court within 2015, even, not in 2016 when he completed 10 years of service though the scheme was framed for those employees who completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 i.e. the date of decision of Uma Devi(supra).

The instant petition is absurdly barred by the doctrine of delay and laches and at present there is no scheme at all to regularize the services of irregularly appointed employees.

Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed before me three judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court which are as under:

1.Sheo Narain Nagar & Ors. Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,(2018) 13 SCC 432;

2.State of Karnataka & Ors. Vrs. M.K. Kesari & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 247;

3. Narendra Kumar Tiwari & Ors.Etc. Vrs. State of Jharkhan & Ors., AIR 2018 SC 3589.

I have given my thoughtful considerations to the aforesaid judgments. In all those judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had deprecated the process of irregular appointments of the persons through back door without following the established norms of appointment. However, in the context of the aforesaid cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had shown its leniency towards the petitioners. According to me, the facts of this case are wholly different from the facts of the cases referred to by Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner.

As I stated earlier the instant writ petition is absurdly barred by the doctrine of delay and laches and at present there is no scheme for

regularization prevalent in the State of Tripura, and further that, regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right, I am of the opinion that in the context of the case on hand the claim for regularization by the petitioner cannot be acceded to. In the above backdrop, the instant writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Sanjay