Tripura High Court
Sri Prasenjit Banerjee & Ors vs The State Of Tripura & Ors on 2 July, 2024
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No. 01 of 2024
in WA No. 35 of 2024
Sri Prasenjit Banerjee & Ors.
...... Appellant-Applicant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Tripura & Ors.
...... Respondent(s)
For Appellant-Applicant(s) : Mr. C S Sinha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, GA.
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Order
02.07.2024
I.A No. 01 of 2024
Heard Mr. C.S Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-applicants and Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, learned GA
appearing for the State-respondents.
We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for
the parties and on consideration of the explanation urged, the delay of 140
days is condoned.
I.A. is disposed of.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the
appeal as well.
The petitioners were appointed as Civil Defence Workers
between 1995 to 2001. They approached the Writ Court in W.P.(C) No.
498 of 2023 for regularization of their services from the dates of their
joining with consequential reliefs.
The regularization scheme bearing order No. F.2(9-Misc)-
MS/ESTT-III/2005 dated 7th December, 2012 under which the writ
petitioners sought to be regularized was repealed by a conscious decision of
State Government contained in the memorandum dated 31st July, 2018.
Both the Memorandum have been evidenced by the learned Writ Court.
The writ petitioners have been converted to DRW status in the year 2012.
This was done with concurrence of the Finance Department. Learned Writ
Court however has held that since the scheme for regularization which
operated for 10(ten) long years has been repealed on 31st July 2018, no
claim for regularization can be allowed nor any direction can be issued
upon the Government to re-open the scheme and consider the cases of these
writ petitioners. The writ petition has also been dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn our
attention to Paragraphs- 4 and 5 of the memorandum dated 1st August,
2018. The same are quoted hereunder:
"4. The policy decision of the Government for
regularizing the services of DRW/Casual/Contingent
Workers after 10 years of services has been
reviewed and in supersessions of all the
memorandums, new memo has been issued with
F.No.10(2)-FIN(G)/2018(Part), dated, 31.07.2018.
5. Therefore, it has been decided that there shall not
be any engagement of DRW/Casual/Contingent
Workers in any office under State Government
without concurrence of Finance department.
Payment of salary/wages/remuneration or any type
of financial benefit for engagement is fully
prohibited. Responsibility of any new engagement
and paying of wages/ salary etc. for
DRW/PTW/MRW/Contingent Workers/ Contractual
employees including re-appointment/ re-engagement
without finance department approval will be fixed on
the concerned HODs for engagement and payment
and the concerned officer will come under
departmental proceeding for violation of the
financial rules of the State."
By this memorandum and the memorandum dated 31st July,
2018 all other previous schemes were repealed. They are in fact referred to
at Paragraph-8 of the impugned judgment and also cover the schemes dated
21st January, 2009 and 7th December, 2012 relating to regularization of
DRWs/Casual/Contingent etc. workers on completion of 10 years of
service. In the Memo dated 7th November, 2012 it was contemplated that
those part-time workers engaged as DRWs/Group-D working in different
departments of the Government for 2/3/4 hours who were engaged on or
prior to 31st March, 2003 and had completed 10 years of service w.e.f 1st
December, 2012 were to be regularized. However, since both
memorandums stand repealed by the office memorandum dated 31st July,
2018 and reiterated in the memorandum dated 1st August, 2018 (Annexure-
3 of the writ appeal) issued by Department of Finance, Government of
Tripura, no legal right to seek regularization exists in favour of the
petitioners. Paragraph 5 of the office memorandum dated 1st August, 2018
on the other hand provides that there shall not be any engagement of
DRWs/Casual/Contingent workers in any office under the State
Government without concurrence of the Finance Department.
This only reiterates the extant position that after repeal of the
regularization schemes by OM dated 31st July, 2018/ 1st August, 2018 any
fresh engagement of DRWs could not be without concurrence of the
Finance Department. This, in any event, it does not create a right for
regularization. The petitioners have chosen to sleep over their rights for
considerable period and approached this Court in 2023, five years after the
abolition of the scheme. As such, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(S. D. PURKAYASTHA) J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH) CJ
SUJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH
Date: 2024.07.05 17:20:15 +05'30'
Sujay
