Sri Swapan Barman vs The State Of Tripura
2023 Latest Caselaw 689 Tri

                              1


               HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                     AGARTALA
                  WP(C) 289/2022

Sri Swapan Barman,
S/O Late Aswini Barman, vill-Anandanagar, P.O-Anandanagar
P.S. Srinagar, District-West Tripura
Pin-799004
                                                     .....Petitioner
                          -VERSUS-

1.     The State of Tripura, represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Kunjaban, P.S.
N.C.C. District-West Tripura. Pin 799006
2.     The Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Tripura,
New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. N.C.C. District-West Tripura. Pin
799006
3.     The Managing Director, Department of Tripura Forest
Development & Plantation Corporation Ltd., Government of Tripura,
Abhoynagar, P.O. Abhoynagar, P.S. East Agartala. District-West
Tripura, Pin-799005.
4.     The Executive Director, Department of Tripura Forest
Development & Plantation Corporation Ltd., Government of Tripura,
Abhoynagar, P.O. Abhoynagar, P.S. East Agartala. District-West
Tripura, Pin-799005.
5.     Sri Dipak Chaudhury, Machine Operator, through the M.D.
Department of Tripura Forest, Development & Plantation Corporation
Ltd., Government of Tripura, Abhoynagar, P.O. Abhoynagar, P.S. East
Agartala. District-West Tripura, Pin-799005.
6.     Sri Biprajit Ghosh, Machine Operator, through the M.D.
Department of Tripura Forest, Development & Plantation Corporation
Ltd., Government of Tripura, Abhoynagar, P.O. Abhoynagar, P.S. East
Agartala. District-West Tripura, Pin-799005.
                                                    .....Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Pal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, GA Mr. P. Maishan, Advocate Date of hearing & delivery : 25.08.2023 of judgment & order Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned GA assisted by Mr. P. Maishan,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State.

2. The petitioner has been serving as permanent worker of Tripura

Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Ltd.(TFDPC, for short) since

1997 and at present he is serving as "Kiln Saw Bench Operator."

3. The petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court being

numbered as WP(C) No.325 of 2011, which was disposed by this Court with

the following observations and directions:

"8. The law is by now well settled. The contractual workers do not have any indefeasible right to claim regularisation. But, definitely their plight cannot be left unnoticed. The state has certain responsibility to give a dignified livelihood to the class of workers who are ensnared in a pitiable wage-situation without a better tomorrow. It has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioners were working as the „Workers‟ under the Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Limited. It appears from the representations (Annexure-P/3 collectively to the writ petition) that some of the petitioners are even working as the factory workers since 1992.

9. Having regard to that aspect of the matter, the respondents are directed to frame a scheme within their resources to regularise the petitioners in a phased manner. As corollary to this observation, the Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Limited, the respondent No.2 is directed to explore the most suitable scheme and to notify that scheme by 31.03.2016. Thereafter, in terms of that scheme the petitioners shall be considered for their regularisation."

4. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned GA has submitted that in pursuance of

the said judgment and order, the respondents have formulated a scheme and

under the said scheme, the petitioner was absorbed as permanent worker. At

para 11 of the counter affidavit it is clearly stated that in pursuance to the

notified scheme for factory workers, the petitioner has been engaged as

permanent worker and by virtue of which his service condition in TFDPC

Ltd. is regular in nature as permanent factory worker and is getting all above

benefits of permanent worker as cited in table given under para 9 of the

affidavit in opposition. At this juncture, it would be useful to reproduce

hereunder the table given at para 9 of the counter affidavit.

 Sl.                       Particular                             Annexed as
 No.
  1      Copy of scheme for workers of Factories of        Annexure B
         TFDPC Ltd" notified vide NoN.F.2-

194/Estt/TFDPC-15/9140-48 dated 28-12-

2 Copy of letter of Chief inspector of Factories Annexure B1 with regard to agreeing with above scheme along with related proposal dated 22-09-2015 of MD TFDPC Ltd 3 Copy of Letter of Labour Commissioner, Annexure B2 Govt. of Tripura with regard to agreeing with above scheme along with related proposal dated 22-09-2015 of MD TFDPC Ltd 4 Proposal of General Manager, TFDPC IE to Annexure B3 regularize Petitioner of as Permanent worker 5 Minutes of 144th meeting of Board of Director Annexure B4 of TFDPC Ltd vide which the Scheme for workers of Factories of TFDPC Ltd was approved-

6 Notification regarding constitution of Annexure B5 Committee for preparation of draft Scheme.

7 Submission of report regarding preparation of Annexure B6 draft scheme by the Chairman of the Committee

5. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner heavily

relying upon the judgment and order passed in WP(C) No.325 of 2011

submitted that regular pay scale has not been given to the petitioner.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for

the parties.

7. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has ever challenged the

terms and conditions delineated in the scheme which was framed in pursuance

of the directions of this Court. This Court has categorically directed the

respondents to formulate a scheme keeping in mind their resources. Having

regard to the directions of this Court, the respondents, particularly the TFDPC

Ltd. had formulated a scheme and as per the scheme, the petitioner had been

made permanent worker having the benefits as stated at para 9(supra).

8. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India cannot direct the State or its instrumentalities to give pay

scales to its employees, which is not prescribed under any rules of the

organization. It is absolutely within the domain of the State authorities or its

instrumentalities to prescribe pay scales for its employees.

9. So, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition for issuing

direction upon the respondents to give the benefit of regular pay scale to the

petitioner.

10. It transpires from the records that the petitioner has been working

under TFDPC Ltd. for a considerable period of time. In view of this, the

TFDPC Ltd. may take an initiative to explore whether any pay scale can be

prescribed against the post, the petitioner is working, keeping in mind the

resources of their organization.

With the above observations and directions, the instant writ

petitions stands disposed.

                                                                                   JUDGE
 Snigdha



SANJAY     Digitally signed by
           SANJAY GHOSH

GHOSH      Date: 2023.08.28
           14:53:49 +05'30'