Tripura High Court
Sri Shibu Chandra Das vs The State Of Tripura on 12 December, 2023
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.1111 of 2022
Sri Shibu Chandra Das, S/o: Sri Suresh Chandra Das, Vill: Fulkumari,
No.1, P.O. Fulkumari, P.S.: R.K. Pur, Dist.: Gomati Tripura, at present
residing at Vill: Kumaritilla, Quarter No. Type 1/3, P.O.: Kunjaban, P.S.:
NCC, Dist.-West Tripura.
.....Petitioner(s)
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary to the Government
of Tripura, Rural Development Department, Agartala.
2. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary to the Government
of Tripura, Finance Department, Agartala.
3. The Chief Engineer, Government of Tripura, Rural Development
Department, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura.
4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department, Store
Division, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura.
5. The District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District, Agartala.
.....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Banerjee, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. K. Reang, Advocate
Date of hearing &
Delivery of judgment : 12.12.2023
& order
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has
sought for regularization of his service under the respondents.
2. Shortly stated, the petitioner was engaged as DRW(Driver) on
fulltime basis in the year 2003. The grievance of the petitioner is that even
though he has completed 10(ten) years of service from the date of
engagement as DRW, his service has not been regularized. For the purpose
of regularization, the petitioner has relied upon the memoranda dated
21.01.2019 and 03.01.2014 issued by the Government of Tripura.
3. From the memorandum dated 31.07.2018(Annexure-R1 to the
writ petition), it appears that the policy decision on regularization of the
services of DRWs/Casual/Contingent/PTW, etc. workers in Government
establishments, State PSUs and Autonomous Bodies, including the
AMC/NPs, was reviewed and it was observed by the law makers of the
State that there were some shortcomings in those instructions for
regularization of services of DRWs/Casual/Contingent employees affecting
institutional efficiency and individual productivity due to different reasons.
After reviewing the situations and to ensure transparent public employment
policy for engagement of employees for such services, the Government of
Tripura had repealed all the memoranda as mentioned in the writ petition
for the purpose of regularization.
4. On the aforesaid facts, I have heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. K. Reang, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents-State.
5. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for
consideration of the regularization of the service of the petitioner since he
has been serving for a long period. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel has
strongly argued that repealing of the schemes for regularization by the
Government of Tripura was contrary to the ratio laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors., reported
in (2006) 4 SCC 1. According to Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the
petitioner, in the case of Umadevi(3)(supra) the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the process of
regularization of irregularly appointed employees would have to be
continued till the services of all such irregularly appointed employees are
regularized.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Reang, learned counsel for the
respondents-State has submitted that the petitioner was not appointed
against any regular vacant sanctioned post. The petitioner was also not
engaged by the competent authority and the petitioner is a backdoor entrant.
This kind of appointment cannot be said irregular appointment, rather it is
an illegal appointment.
7. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the parties. I have also gone through the documents
enclosed/annexed to the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit.
8. Admittedly, no public employment notification i.e.
advertisement was issued while engaging the petitioner under the
respondents as DRWs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions
repeatedly held that employment notification or advertisements must be
published irrespective of the nature of the posts or nature of the
appointment. Any appointment or engagement dehors the constitutional
schemes or the statutory rules is illegal and not irregular. In the case of
State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has made a clear distinction between irregular and illegal
employees. In the case of Uma Devi(3)(supra), the Constitution Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Central and the State
Governments to formulate scheme for irregularly appointed employees, but
not for the employees who are appointed illegally.
9. In the present case, Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the
petitioner has failed to justify that the petitioner was appointed against any
regular sanctioned vacant post. The engagement letter also is not found in
the writ petition. Only a certificate in his name has been enclosed as
annexure (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), wherein the petitioner's
engagement was recorded as DRW. Moreover, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition in the year 2022 claiming regularization of his service
on the basis of the memoranda which were repealed by the government in
the year 2018. The petitioner did not approach the court of law to raise his
grievance for not considering his regularization of service. Only in the year
2022, the petitioner suddenly woke up from the slumber and approached
this Court for regularization of his service. In my opinion, the present writ
petition is absolutely barred by delay and laches.
10. In the light of above, keeping in mind the ratio laid down in
Umadevi(3)(supra) and the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in M.L. Kesari (supra)and Renu vs. District and Sessions Judge,
Tis-Hajari, (2014)14 SCC 50: 2014 SCC OnLine SC 123: AIR 2014 SC
2175 and in view of the decisions passed by a Division bench of this Court
in State of Tripura vs. Suprava Debnath, reported in 2023 SCC Online Tri
833 and by this Court in Sri Satya Ranjan Dey and Anr. vs. The State of
Tripura and 4 Ors. passed in WP(C) No.5 of 2023, I am not inclined to
grant the reliefs claimed by the petitioner herein for regularization of his
services.
11. In the result, the present writ petition stands dismissed being
devoid of merit.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Snigdha
SAIKAT Digitally signed
by SAIKAT KAR
KAR Date: 2023.12.13
17:45:32 +05'30'
