Tripura High Court
Namita Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 13 May, 2024
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.43 of 2024
1. Namita Debnath,
W/o Sri Babul Das, R/o:Vill Datta Para, P.S. Jogendranagar, Agartala, West
Tripura, Aged 51 years
2. Sipra Acharjee,
W/o Santi Acharjee, R/o: Vill: Jogendranagar, Bankumari, Agartala, West
Tripura, Aged 49 years
3. Rita Debnath,
W/o Nimai Debnath, R/o: Vill Champamura, P.O. Old Agartala, West
Tripura, Aged 45 years
4. Aruna Bhowmik,
W/o Manoranjan Bhowmik, R/o: Vill Madhupur, I.C. Nagar, Agartala,
West Tripura, Aged 56 years
...... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura,
(To be represented by) the Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Tripura,
New Capital Complex, New Secretariat Building, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN 799001.
2. The Director of Health Services,
Govt. of Tripura, P.N. Complex, Agartala, West Tripura
3. The Secretary,
Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, New Capital Complex, New
Secretariat Building, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799001.
...... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Senior Advocate.
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, G.A.
Date of hearing &
delivery of Judgment : 13th May, 2024.
Whether fit for reporting : NO
Page 2 of 6
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the
appellant-petitioners. Also heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, learned G.A.
for the respondents.
[2] The delay of 255 days in filing the appeal is condoned being not
opposed by the other side and the matter is heard on merit.
[3] The judgment dated 06.07.2023 passed by the learned Writ Court
in WP(C) No.466 of 2022 is under challenge in this appeal whereby learned
Single Judge rejected the prayer for regularization for the appellant-petitioners.
[4] The appellant-petitioners with others were initially engaged as Slip
workers/Casual worker on different occasions during the year 1994 to 1997
under the respondents and were receiving their pay as daily wages. Thereafter,
the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura declared all the
appellants as Casual workers notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2010 vide memorandum
dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure 15 of the writ petition). The appellants submitted
representations to the Director of Health Services for regularization of their
service in Group-D post on completion of 10 years thereafter. As stated by the
appellants, all the representations were exactly similar and identical in nature
and therefore, one of such representation as a sample was submitted before the
learned Writ Court under Annexure 20. In support of claim for regularization of
service, the appellants also relied on memorandum dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure
16 of the writ petition) and memorandum dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure 17 of the
writ petition), both issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura.
But getting no response in respect of their representations, ultimately they filed
the writ petition with the following prayers:
(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a
writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or
direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby
directing the Respondents to regularize the service of the
Petitioners in Group-D posts on completion of 10 years
service as Casual Worker/Slip Worker, w.e.f., the date on
which the Petitioners completed 10 years as Casual
Worker/Slip Worker.
(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a
writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or
direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued
modifying the Memorandum, dated 30.03.2010, issued by the
Director of Health Service, Govt. of Tripura, to the extent,
that, all the Petitioners were serving as Casual Worker w.e.f.
the first day when they joined their service under the
Respondents.
(iii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a
writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or
direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby
directing the Respondents to pay monthly
wages/remuneration to the Petitioners at par with the
minimum of the pay scale of Group-D post.
(iv) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a
writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and or
direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby
quashing and cancelling the Memo, dated 31.07.2018, issued
by the Under Secretary, Govt. of Tripura, Finance
Department.
(v) Make the rules absolute.
(vi) Call for records.
(vii) Pass any further Order/Orders as this Hon'ble High Court
considered fit and proper.
[5] Admittedly, abovesaid memorandums based on which the
appellants and other writ petitioners (not appellants herein) lodged their claim
for regularization were repealed by the State Government vide memorandum
dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure 18 of the writ petition). While rejecting the claim
for regularization, learned Writ Court, inter alia, observed as follows:
" In my opinion, the petitioners have completed 10 years of
service in the year 2020 when no scheme for regularization exists.
In the above conspectus, I find no merit in the present writ
petition. However, the respondents may consider their prayer for
regularization keeping in mind that the petitioners have rendered
their valuable service for considerable period of time subject to
availability of sanctioned vacant posts commensurate to their
education qualifications.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed in the
above terms."
[6] Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior contends that even if the claim
of regularization of the appellants was rejected by the learned Writ Court, the
appellants are entitled to equal pay for equal work in view of the decision
rendered by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and
others [(2017) 1 SCC 148]. Learned senior counsel further argues that there are
vacant posts lying in the Department of the respondents and the appellants are
also discharging similar duties and responsibilities of Group-D employee due to
acute shortage of staffs and therefore, they are entitled to get the benefit of
equal pay for equal work and monthly wages/remuneration which is not less
than the minimum of pay scale of Group-D post.
[7] Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. however, contends
that the scheme of regularization itself was withdrawn in the year 2018 and as
such, the appellants were not entitled to regularization of their services and
therefore, learned Single Judge was completely justified in rejecting their
prayers. Learned G.A. further argues that all the appellants were engaged
without concurrence from the Finance Department as a stopgap measure in
absence of regular employees, for smooth running of day to day work of the
hospitals and even after so, they were declared as a Casual worker w.e.f.
01.01.2010. According to learned G.A., the appellants are, therefore, not
entitled to get any relief as prayed for by them.
[8] We have considered rival contentions of the parties and also
perused the record.
[9] As it appears, the regularization scheme was already withdrawn by
the Government vide memorandum dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure 18 of the writ
petition) i.e. even prior to completion of 10 years of service of appellants as
Casual workers and as such, they cannot now claim for regularization of their
services. We are, therefore, in agreement with the views taken by the learned
Single Judge in the impugned judgment. So far as the claim for equal pay for
equal work is concerned, from the sample representation (Annexure 20 of the
writ petition) of one of the writ petitioner (not appellant herein), it appears that
no such claim was raised by the appellants before the respondents on any
occasion and for the first time it was claimed before the learned Writ Court.
Learned Writ Court also in the impugned judgment did not give any decision
on their said claim for such equal pay with reference to prayer No.(iii) of the
writ petition.
[10] However, learned Writ Court in the impugned judgment has
observed that respondents may consider the prayer for regularization of the writ
petitioner keeping in mind that the petitioners have rendered their valuable
service for considerable period of time subject to availability of sanctioned
vacant post commensurate to their educational qualification. We are not
interfering with the above said observation of learned Writ Court. In addition
thereto, we are giving an opportunity to the appellants to make further
representation to the respondents in respect of their claim of equal pay for equal
work furnishing all the related materials in support of their such claim within a
period not later than 3(three) weeks and the concerned respondents will dispose
of such representations along with the said direction of the Writ Court
regarding consideration of their prayer for regularization by a reasoned order
within 6(six) weeks thereafter. Needless to say, the appellants will have the
liberty to approach appropriate forum in case they are not satisfied with the
decision of the respondents in this regard. With these observations, this writ
appeal is disposed of without any interference with the impugned judgment
passed by the learned Writ Court.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Rudradeep RUDRADEEP BANERJEE BANERJEE
Date: 2024.05.24 18:12:41 +05'30'
