Tripura High Court
Smt. Lila Malakar vs The State Of Tripura on 24 May, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.825 of 2022
Smt. Lila Malakar, Age-59 years
W/o: Pabitra Malakar
R/o: Vill: Netajinagar, P.O & P.S: Kanchanpur,
Dist: North Tripura, 799270
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura
To be represented by Secretary,
Information Cultural Affairs & Tourism Govt
of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New
Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S: New
Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN: 799010.
2. The Secretary
Department of Finance, Govt of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S: New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN: 799010.
3. The Director,
Information and Cultural Affairs,
Govt of Tripura, Agartala, Tripura(W)
4. The Deputy Director,
District ICA Office, North Tripura, Kailahshar
5. The Information and Cultural Officer,
Sub-Divisional Information and Cultural Affairs Office,
Kanchanpur, North Tripura
6. The Zonal Development Officer,
North Zone, TTAADC, Machmara, Unokoti, Tripura.
7. Tripura Tribal Area Autonomous District Council
To be represented by the Chief Executive Officer,
TTAADC, Tripura West
8. The Executive Officer,
TTAADC, Khwumlung, Tripura West
....Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, GA
Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA
Mr. B. Debbarma, Advocate
Date of hearing
and delivery of
judgment & order : 24.05.2023
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned GA assisted by Mr.
M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents-State and
Mr. B. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
TTAADC.
2. The fact of the case is that the petitioner was first engaged as
casual worker under the respondents in the year 1998. Since then she has
been discharging her duties and responsibilities as casual worker. The
Government of Tripura had introduced a scheme in the year 2009 in
pursuance of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Uma Devi & Ors
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 directing the State Governments to frame a
scheme for consideration of regularization of those irregularly appointed
employees. According to that scheme, the employees who had completed
10(ten) years of service as on 31.03.2008, their services for regularization
would be considered. The petitioner had completed 10(ten) years before
the said cut-off date.
3. According to Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, since the petitioner was not considered for regularization
after the introduction of the scheme of 2009, she submitted a
representation to the authority concerned for consideration of her
regularization, but, it was not responded to by the respondents. The
petitioner again submitted another representation on 07.09.2017 for
consideration of regularization of her service. Having found no response,
the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on 19.09.2022.
4. Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that since the service of the petitioner has been utilized by the
respondents for such a long period, the respondents should have
considered the regularization of the service of the petitioner. Ultimately,
Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner deserves
to be regularized in the post where she is serving at present. The
academic qualification of the petitioner is Class VIII passed.
5. Opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned GA has contended that the instant
writ petition is absolutely barred by the principles of delay and laches.
The right of the petitioner to claim regularization got matured in the year
2008, when the scheme was introduced for regularization in view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi & Ors(supra). The
petitioner submitted representation in the year 2010 for consideration of
her regularization. Thereafter, she preferred to keep silent and suddenly
she submitted another representation in the year 2017. That representation
also was not responded by the respondents. In the meantime, the scheme
of 2009 had been repealed by the Government of Tripura and till today no
new scheme has been introduced. The petitioner has filed the present writ
petition only in the year 2022.
6. Learned GA has further submitted that now 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.
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. Moreso, 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.
In this backdrop, the instant writ petition stands disposed.
JUDGE
Snigdha
