Smt. Muktalata Debnath And Anr vs The State Of Tripura And 5 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 532 Tri

                                  1


              HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                    AGARTALA
                  WP(C) 965/2022
Smt. Muktalata Debnath and anr.                        ----Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus
The State of Tripura and 5 ors.                        ----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA Mr. N. Majumder, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 17/07/2023

Heard Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Additional GA appearing

for the respondents-State and Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents-TSECL.

By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed

for their upgradation. The petitioners were engaged as Part Time

Workers ('PTW', for short) in the year 2002. There is a policy framed

in the year 2012, that all PTWs who have completed 10 (ten) years of

services shall be upgraded as Daily Rated Workers ('DRW', for short).

Both the petitioners had completed their ten years of services as PTWs

in the year 2012 itself. They have submitted representations for

upgradation of their services to the post of DRWs, but those

representations were not considered till today. At last, having received

no response to the requests for upgradation of their posts as DRWs, the

petitioners have approached this court by way of presenting the instant

writ petition.

Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel have submitted that the petitioners

accrued their rights to be upgraded to the post of DRWs in the year 2012

itself after completion of ten years of their services in terms of the

Memorandum dated 07.11.2012 issued by the respondents, but the

respondents failed to consider the upgradation of the petitioners to the

posts of DRWs. Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel, has urged this court to

pass a direction upon the respondents directing them to upgrade the

services of the petitioners to the post of DRWs. Ms. Debbarma, learned

counsel has also relied upon an order dated 25.04.2022 passed by this

court in WP(C) 649 of 2021, wherein this court had passed a direction to

consider the upgradation of the petitionersfrom PTW to DRW. Since the

petitioner in that writ petition had completed ten years of service in

pursuance of the memorandum dated 07.11.2012.

On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional GA appearing for

the respondents-State has submitted that all the memorandums including

the Memo dated 07.11.2012 concerning to the regularization or

upgradation of PTWs to DRWs have already been repealed by the State

government in the year 2018, and at present there is no scheme available

with the government to such upgradation of the petitioners.

Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents-TSECL has

echoed the submissions made by learned Additional GA.

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel

appearing for the parties.

At the outset, I have perused the judgment dated 25.04.2022 passed by

a Coordinate Bench of this court in WP(C) 649 of 2021, where the

Coordinate Bench had directed the respondents to consider the

upgradation of the petitioner of that writ petition.

After perusal of the said judgment, it is found that Memorandum

repealing the policy decision dated 07.11.2012 was not placed before the

court while disposing of W.P.(C) 649 of 2021. So, according to this court,

this is a judgment per incuriam which may not be binding upon this

court. Added to it, the petitioners might have acquired their rights for

claiming upgradation in the year 2012 after completion of ten years of

continuous service. They should have approached the court with their

grievances within a reasonable period of time which may not be, in the

nature of such case, more than 2 (two) years from the date of completion

of ten years of their services, but they have approached this court only in

the year 2022, after the lapse of ten years. Needless to say, that the

petitioners were not diligent to pursue their case. Moreso, the

memorandum dated 07.11.2012 has already been repealed by the

government.

In view of this, the present writ petition is absolutely barred by the

doctrine of delay and laches. However, since the petitioners have been

discharging their duties as PTWs for the last two decades, I direct the

respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for upgradation to the

post of DRWs sympathetically. According to this court, the petitioners

deserve to get better remuneration for their services, they rendered for the

last two decades. Such consideration may be made within a period of 2

(two) months from today.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition

stands disposed.

JUDGE

SAIKA Digitally signed by SAIKAT KAR Date:

T KAR 2023.07.18 17:19:36 +05'30'