Tripura High Court
Smt. Lila Malakar vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 12 December, 2023
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WA No.66 of 2023
Smt. Lila Malakar
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Tripura and others
......Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharya, G.A.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
_O _R _D _E_ R_
12.12.2023
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharya, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the State.
[2] The prayer for regularization by the petitioner in terms of the
scheme of 2008-2009 has been declined by the learned Writ Court on the
ground that the writ petition is absolutely barred by the doctrine of delay and
laches. The relevant factual matrix as borne out from the writ records and also
taken note of the impugned judgment indicates that the petitioner was engaged
as a casual worker in the year 1998. A scheme for regularization was framed
in the year 2008 in terms of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case
of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Uma Devi (3) and others,
(2006) 4 SCC 1. Petitioner made representation for her regularization first in
the year 2012 and thereafter as late as 24.08.2020 (Annexure-13). Petitioner's
case was also recommended on 14.09.2017 and thereafter on 30.10.2019 by
the Zonal Development Officer, North Zone, TTAADC, Machmara, Unakoti
to the Director, Information & Cultural Affairs, Government of Tripura,
Agartala, Tripura(West) and to the Executive Officer (Admn.), TTAADC,
Khumulwng, Tripura (West) (Annexures 10 & 12). Petitioner was compelled
to approach this Court after the respondents failed to act both on her
representation and recommendations made by the officials of TTAADC. It
also came to fore during the writ proceedings that the scheme for
regularization was abolished in the year 2018. The State has also pointed out
that the minimum educational qualification prescribed for filling up of a
Group-D post is Class-X pass and there is no post for a person who has not
passed Class-X. Petitioner was only Class-VIII pass.
[3] Taking into consideration all these factors, the learned Writ Court
dismissed the writ petition holding inter alia as under :
"7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing
for the parties. I find force in the submission of learned GA that
the instant writ petition is absolutely barred by the doctrine of
delay and laches. It is the duty of the employee or citizens to
agitate his/her grievance within a reasonable period of time and
that reasonable period of time should be 3(three) years. The
petitioner in the instant writ petition is found all along negligent.
Being her right for regularization was matured in the year 2008,
but not regularized till 2018, she lost her right to agitate her
grievance at such belated stage.
8. More so, at this stage, the scheme for regularization of
irregularly appointed employees has been repealed since 2018.
After such repeal, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition
in the year 2022, i.e., after a lapse of 4(four) years.
In view of this, according to me, the claim of the petitioner has
become stale and in the result, I find no merit in the instant writ
petition as it is absolutely barred by the doctrine of delay and
laches. However, the respondents may consider her representation
taking into account the fact that she has been serving the State for
the last 25 years as a Group-D employee."
[4] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submits that delay and laches should not be treated to defeat the legitimate
grievance of the petitioner since she has been serving the respondents for the
last 25 years. The appellant was all along diligent in pursuing her
representation with the hope that the respondents would themselves take a
decision on her regularization since recommendations have been made by the
Zonal Development Officer, North Zone, TTAADC as late as 14.09.2017 and
30.10.2019 respectively. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice, the
impugned judgment may be set aside and respondents be directed to regularize
the services of the petitioner.
[5] Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate has
opposed the prayer and reiterated the grounds taken before the Writ Court. It
is also pointed out that Writ of Mandamus or direction at this stage after
abolition of the scheme in 2018 would lead to opening of the pandora's box in
matters which are stale. Petitioner also did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of
Class-X pass. As such, no regularization can be made in teeth of the extant
rules.
[6] On consideration of rival submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and after going through the relevant pleadings and annexures of the
writ records and on perusal of the impugned judgment, we are also of the
considered view that the findings of the learned Writ Court do not suffer from
any infirmities warranting interference at the appellate stage. Petitioner sat
over the matter for almost 14 years since the regularization scheme was
framed in the year 2008 before approaching the Writ Court in the year 2022
when the scheme itself was abolished in the year 2018. Mere filing of
representation does not arrest the march of time and revive a stale cause of
action. Moreover, mere recommendations by the subordinate authorities do
not create a cause of action until a decision is taken by the competent
authority. The one-time measure devised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Uma Devi (supra) cannot continue to open up a window of relief for
litigants who sit back and wait at the periphery when other diligent persons
approach the Court within reasonable time for redressal of their grievances.
Reference is also made to the recent judgment rendered by this Court in WA
No.112 of 2022 on the issue of regularization.
[7] In such circumstances, we do not find any error in the impugned
judgment. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
DIPESH DEB Date: 2023.12.13 18:08:05
