Tripura High Court
Smt. Kabita Rani De vs State Of Tripura And 3 Others on 16 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 297/2023
Smt. Kabita Rani De ................... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Tripura and 3 others ............... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DC Saha, Advocate.
Mr. TK Choudhury, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AK Deb, Advocate.
Date of hearing and
delivery of judgment
and order : 16.05.2023.
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed
by the petitioner.
[2] The brief facts enumerated in the petition of the petitioner are that
the petitioner engaged as Contingent Worker by Power Department,
Government of Tripura on 01.01.1995. After creation of TSECL her service
transferred on deputation to said corporation with assurance that her service
condition shall be governed by rules, regulations by which she was governed
as on 31.12.2004. Thereafter on 10.09.2015 TSECL has given offer of
appointment to the petitioner alongwith other regularizing her service with a
direction that she should join on or before 17th September, 2015 to his/her
place of posting. Accordingly she joined to her new assignment on
16.09.2015. But on 18.09.2015, the aforesaid offer of appointment was kept
in abeyance until further order. On 07.08.2017. aforesaid kept in abeyance
order was withdrawn with immediate effect without considering the
retrospective effect of regularization with effect from 01.07.2008. On 30.
07.2021, she came to learn that retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.07.2008 was
allowed to other similar situated persons even juniors to petitioner vide
Memo dated 05.08.2017 depriving the petitioner though her name has been
incorporated at serial no. 77 of List-4 enclosed with Memo dated 09.06.2009
and as such she is entitled to effect of her regularization w.e.f. 01.07.2008.
Moreover on 08.08.2019 some employees even juniors allowed 50% of their
past service as DRW/Contingent workers etc. depriving the petitioner.
Moreover on 16.07.2021 in the Seniority list her name has been shown at Sl.
No.933 showing her juniors as her senior. According to the petitioner, in
spite of her representations, the respondent(s) is/are arbitrarily depriving her
from the financial and service benefits alongwith her appropriate seniority
and counting of her past service towards pension etc. which has been
allowed to similarly situated persons even juniors to petitioner.
[3] Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court for the
following reliefs:
(a) Admit the writ petition.
(b) Call for the records.
(c) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to
show cause as to why the Memorandum No.F.6(1)-TSECL(PSU)/Estt.-
I/2021/Pt-I/20126-174 dated 16.07.2021 should not be declared as illegal
and arbitrary in respect of the seniority of the petitioner.
(d) Issue writ of certiorari calling upon the respondents to show cause as to
why the Memorandum No. F.1(2)-TSECL (PSU)/ Estt.-I/2015/25787-841
dated 08.08.2019 should be declared as illegal and arbitrary as regard to the
non-counting of past service towards pension etc. of the petitioner as
contingent worker as allowed to similar situated persons even juniors to the
petitioner depriving petitioner without showing any cause.
(e) Issue writ of certiorari calling upon the respondents to show case as to
why the Memorandum No.F.2(1)-TSECL/PSU/Estt.-I/2015/21700-55 dated
05.08.2017 should not be declared as illegal and arbitrary as regard to the
regularization of service allowed to similar situated persons even juniors to
the petitioner with effect from 01.07.2008 depriving the petitioner for not
regularizing her service with effect from 01.07.2008 from contingent worker
without showing any cause.
(f) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to show
cause as to why the Memorandum No.F.6(151)-TSECL/Corp-
Office/2015/32217-311 dated 10.09.2015 should not be declared as illegal
and arbitrary as regard to the date of effect of regularization of the
petitioner.
(g) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to
show cause as to why the service of petitioner should not be regularized
with effect from 01.07.2008 from contingent worker to the post of Helper
Grade-II in abiding the principle enunciated by the Government vide
Memorandum dated 09.06.2009 alike similarly situated persons.
(h) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to
show cause as to why the respondents should not act and be computed her
service to the post of Helper Grade-II with effect from 01.07.2008 and to
defray pay and allowances to the petitioner alike similarly situated persons
even juniors to the petitioner.
[4] Heard Mr. DC Saha, learned counsel appearing alongwith Mr. TK
Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. AK Deb, learned counsel
appears for the respondents.
[5] Having considered the submissions as advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for both the parties and without expressing any opinion on
merits of this case, the present writ petition stands disposed of directing the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the
representations submitted on 27.12.2022 before the respondents within a
period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
[6] Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of. As a sequel,
miscellaneous application pending, if any, shall stand closed.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi G.
