Tripura High Court
Sri Litan Bardhan And Another vs The State Of Tripura And 3 Ors on 24 April, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 114 of 2025
Sri Litan Bardhan And Another
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and 3 Ors.
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. GA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Order
24.04.2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2] This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
seeking the following relief(s):
i. Admit this petition of the petitioner and call for records relevant to the subject matter
from the custody of the respondents.
ii. Issue Writ directing the Respondents and each of them to grant the financial benefits to
the petitioner as per the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2021 from 05.07.2021 to
August 2023.
iii. Issue Writ directing the Respondents and each of them to grant the earn leave and
medical leave since 05.07.2021 i.e. the date of Judgment and Order passed in WP(C)
211 of 2021 to August 2023 when the financial benefit were given.
iv. Issue Writ directing the Respondents and each of them to grant the arrear of pay w.e.f.
05.07.2021 i.e. the date of Judgment and Order passed in WP(C) 211 of 2021 till
17.03.2023 when the financial benefit was given by the respondent by Memorandum
dated 25.09.2023, vide No.F.10(748)-DHE/LA/2021/2696.
v. Issue Writ Certiorari or in the nature thereof directing the Respondent No. 2 and each of
them to quash/ modify the Memo 25.09.2023, 2021/2696. vide No.F.10(748)-DHE/LA/
AND
vi. Pass such other or further order/orders and direction/directions as your Lordship deems
fit and proper, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
[3] It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were engaged in
the post of Watch and ward and sweeper as full time casual worker from
09.10.2003 and 01.01.2004. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 informed the
respondent No. 2 that the petitioners and other similar persons like the petitioners
are neither contractual workers nor honorary workers, but casual workers. The
former issued a memorandum dated 29.03.2010 discontinuing the said services of
the petitioners. Before the same came in effect, a subsequent corrigendum was
issued on 31.03.2010 withdrawing the preceding memorandum. On 07.04.2010,
respondent No. 2 communicated to the respondent No. 4 informing that such
termination may be cancelled and the petitioners may be allowed to continue
service. On 01.02.2012, the respondent No. 4 issued a letter to respondent No. 2
that the service of the petitioners are requested for the best interest of Tripura
Institute of Technology (TIT). By communication dated 03.09.2012, the names of
the petitioners and other similarly situated persons like the petitioners were
suggested for regularization. On 07.01.2014, 10.02.2014 and 17.10.2014, the
petitioners and similar others made communications to the respondent No. 2 for
regularization of their respective services. The petitioners are fully covered by the
memorandum dated 21.01.2009 and letter dated 15.01.2014 and therefore their
claims for regularization of their services, can under no circumstances be denied.
It is mentioned that the non-regularization of the petitioner, run contrary to the
policy decision of the State Government.
[4] Aggrieved by conduct of the respondents the petitioners have filed
this writ petition.
[5] On perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioners made a
representation dated 08.07.2024 which has not been acted upon till date by the
respondents.
[6] In view of above submission, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, this present writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the representation
dated 08.07.2024 in accordance with law within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
[7] With the above observation and direction, this present writ petition
stands disposed of. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK by DIPAK DAS
DAS 10:58:12 +05'30'
