Tripura High Court
Smt. Uma Roy @ Uma Roy (Bhowmik) vs The State Of Tripura on 19 January, 2023
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. 201 of 2020
Smt. Uma Roy @ Uma Roy (Bhowmik), wife of late Makhan lal
Bhowmik, D/o late Amar chandra Roy, resident of Kalachari No.
II, P.O. Manikbhander, P.S. Kamalpur, District- Dhalai, Tripura,
PIN-799287
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary,
Department of power, New Secretariat Complex, Khejurbagan,
P.O. Kunjaban-799006, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West
Tripura
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, New
Secretariat Complex, Khejurbagan, P.O. Kunjaban-799006, P.S.
New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura
3. The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (A
Government of Tripura Enterprise), represented by the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity
Corporation Limited, having its Head office at Bidhut Bhavan,
North Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity
Corporation Limited, Bidhut Bhavan, North Banamalipur,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.K. Chowdhury, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA
Mr. N. Majumder, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment : 19.01.2023
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order (Oral)
19/01/2023
(T. Amarnath Goud, ACJ)
This appeal has been filed by the original petitioner
challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
29.07.2020 passed in WP(C) no.865 of 2017.
Page 2
The grievance of the original petitioner was that she was
engaged on a Part Time basis by the Tripura State Electricity
Corporation in the year 1997. On 09.06.2009, the Finance
Department of the Government of Tripura issued a Memorandum
regularizing services of DRW and Casual Workers working in
TSECL. On 07.11.2012, a fresh Memorandum was issued under
which services of Part Time Workers, who had put in more than
10 years of service would be converted into Full Time basis. The
grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been granted the
benefit under either of these two schemes. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner filed a writ petition being WP(C) 865 of 2017, and the
said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of
this court observing that since the petitioner has not worked on
full time basis for the intervening period, actual salary as a DRW
shall be paid only prospectively and not for the past period.
Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since
the appellant was performing her duties as DRW for 8 hours, her
service should be regularized with retrospective effect. Learned
counsel has relied upon the scheme dated 09.06.2009 issued by
the Department of Finance, Government of Tripura to establish
the duties of the appellant on Full Time Basis.
Page 3
Learned counsel for the respondent-TSECL objecting the
submission of learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the appellant was discharging her duties only on Part Time
basis i.e. for 2 hours only, and not on Full Time basis and thus,
she is not entitled to be regularized. Learned counsel has further
refuted the document establishing the petitioner's continuance
engagement on full-time basis.
We have perused the relevant documents relating to the
instant matter. After perusal of the same, it is aptly clear that the
appellant was engaged as Part Time Worker in the year 1997 and
her engagement as Part Time Worker was subsequently
approved by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura.
The petitioner had uninterruptedly performed her duties for two
hours as part time worker. It is further clear that the scheme for
regularizing Full Time Workers was framed in the year 2009 and
subsequently in the year 2012, but, the appellant could not fulfill
certain conditions with reference to the said schemes for treating
her as Full time Worker. Further, the submission of learned
counsel for the appellant cannot be taken as gospel truth unless
the same is supported by evidence.
The learned Single Judge having examined all such aspects
passed the impugned order. In the instant appeal, after hearing
the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of
the documentary evidence, we find no scope to allow the appeal.
Page 4
As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order dated 09.07.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(C) No.865 of 2017. Accordingly, appeal is, therefore,
dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Saikat
