Tripura High Court
Sri Uttam Kumar Saha vs The State Of Tripura on 9 April, 2025
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.638 of 2024
Sri Uttam Kumar Saha,
S/o Late Lal Mohan Saha,
(Aged about 53 years), Resident of Town Pratapgarh, Road No.1,
P.O. Town Pratapgarh, P.S. East Agartala, Sub-Division- Sadar,
District- West Triprua.
........Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary, Public Works Department,
Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S.
New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799010.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, New Capital
Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West
Tripura, PIN- 799010.
3. The Deputy Secretary,
Public Works Department (R&B), Government of Tripura, New
Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
District- West Tripura, PIN- 799010.
4. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (R&B), Government of Tripura, Netaji
Chowmuhani, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West
Tripura, PIN-799001.
........ Respondent(s)
5. Sri Shibu Deb,
Son of Motilal Deb, Work Assistant, Office of Assistant Engineer,
Central-VIII Sub-Division, A.D. Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- A.D. Nagar,
Agartala, District- West Tripura.
........ Proforma Respondent
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate.
Mr. Subham Majumder, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA.
Date of hearing and delivery : 9th April, 2025.
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Heard Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for
the respondents, now respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Daily Rated
Worker (for short, DRW)/casual worker on 27.07.1992 under the official
respondents and at that time, his educational qualification was
Madhyamik plucked. However, while serving as DRW, he passed
Madhyamik examination in the year 2006. As stated, thereafter, he vide
his letter dated 15.06.2006 submitted the marksheet of Madhyamik
examination and urged his authority for engaging him as Group-C
employee. Thereafter, the services of total 14 nos. of such casual
workers including the petitioner serving under the Public Works
Department (for short, PWD) were regularized to the post of
Peon/Chowkidar w.e.f. 01.07.2008 vide office Memo No.F.6(29)-PWD(E-
II)/2008(L) dated 08.06.2009 issued by respondent no.4. According to
the petitioner, thereafter, he alongwith proforma-respondent No.5, Sri
Shibu Deb (who was then working as peon) and others appeared in the
departmental type test examination. Though said Sri Shibu Deb could
not qualify, but the petitioner successfully passed it, and then, vide
order dated 04.03.2014, he was appointed on promotion as LDC but
said Sri Shibu Deb was not. Thereafter, his pay was fixed from the date
of his joining on the promotional post in the year 2014.
3. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent
No.5, Sri Shibu Deb, also joined the PWD as DRW on 08.08.1988, and at
that time, he was also Madhyamik plucked and he passed Madhyamik
examination in the year 1989, i.e., after his engagement as DRW and
vide office order dated 10.01.2008, his service was regularized in the
post of Peon w.e.f. 01.01.2007, but suddenly on 29.05.2021, a fresh
appointment letter was issued in his favour appointing him to the post of
Work Assistant on regular basis w.e.f. the date of regularization of his
service in the post of Group-D in cancellation of his earlier appointment
letter issued on 10.01.2008 and it was also ordered that his pay scale
would be fixed in the relevant grade for regularization with prospective
effect, but with notional fixation from 01.01.2007.
4. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel submits that the present
petitioner is similarly situated person or rather in a better footings than
said proforma-respondent No.5, Sri Shibu Deb, whose pay was ordered
to be notionally fixed against Group-C post w.e.f. 01.01.2007, whereas
the pay of the present petitioner was fixed against such Group-C post
only from the year 2014. Learned counsel also refers to a judgment
dated 13.09.2024, passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in a case
passed in Smt. Anima Debnath versus The State of Tripura &
Others in WP(C) No.410 of 2024 and another judgment of the same
date in case of Smt. Aparajita Bhowmik versus The State of
Tripura & Others in WP(C) No.411 of 2024, where in both the said
cases, the petitioners were also similarly situated persons like the
present petitioner, but taking note of the case of the said proforma-
respondent, Sri Shibu Deb, this Court directed the respondents-State to
consider the cases of the petitioners for their appointment as Group-C
employee in accordance with the Recruitment Rules prescribed for the
post of Group-C within a period of 3(three) months from the date of
receipt of order. Thereafter, in terms of said judgments, both the said
petitioners, who were Group-D employees were promoted as Lower
Division Clerk (Group-C) w.e.f. the date of regularization of their
services against such Group D posts i.e. from 01.07.2008, vide two
office orders issued by the PWD on 02.01.2025. Mr. Lodh, learned
counsel submits that the present case is also covered by the decisions
of both the said two cases, and therefore, necessary direction may be
passed to the respondents for fixation of the petitioner's pay notionally
w.e.f. 01.07.2008 as Group C employee.
5. Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., on the other
hand, argues that the petitioner before passing the Madhyamik
examination, did not obtain any permission from the Department and
moreover, he did not get his academic qualification recorded in his
service record after passing of said examination and now suddenly, after
so many years he has approached this Court for such notional fixation
w.e.f. the date of his regularization of service as Group-D employee, and
therefore, the petition also suffers from delay and laches.
6. This Court has taken note of the submissions of both sides
and the materials placed in the record. So far the plea raised by the
respondents that without permission of the Department, the petitioner
appeared in Madhyamik examination, is concerned, this matter has
already been dealt with in the judgments dated 13.09.2024 passed in
said WP(C) No.410 of 2024 and WP(C) No.411 of 2024. The Court in
those cases observed that as the petitioners were working as Casual
Workers, there was no necessity for them for obtaining 'No Objection
Certificate' (for short, NOC) from the competent authority. Same
principle will also apply in the present case. Above said judgments are
not challenged by the respondents-State in any higher forum, rather,
they have complied with the directions of the Court. It is also a fact
that, vide office order dated 29.05.2021, regularization of service of said
Sri Shibu Deb against Group-C post was given w.e.f. 01.01.2007, i.e.,
from the date when service of said Sri Shibu Deb was regularized as
Group-D employee. It is also discernible that the present case is
squarely covered by the decisions of this Court passed in WP(C) No.410
of 2024 and WP(C) No.411 of 2024, which are unchallenged by the
respondents.
7. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the view that
the petitioner is also entitled to get similar benefits as was provided to
Sri Shibu Deb (Pro. respondent no.5).
In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The
respondent nos. 1 to 4 are directed to consider the case of the present
petitioner for fixing his pay against Group-C post notionally w.e.f.
01.07.2008 and to re-fix his salary accordingly.
With such observations and direction, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABD Digitally signed by
SATABDI DUTTA
Date: 2025.04.16
I DUTTA 17:58:32 +05'30'
Dinashree
