[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Smt. Surpriya Chakraborty vs Tripura University on 9 December, 2025
Page 1 of 13
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.588 of 2023
Smt. Surpriya Chakraborty, D/o Late Sisir Ranjan Chakraborty, resident
of Jogendranangar, P.O. - Agartala College, P.S. - East Agartala,
District - West Tripura.
......... Petitioner (s);
Versus
1. Tripura University, A Central University, represented by the
Registrar, Tripura University, having its office at Suryamaninagar,
P.O. Suryamaninagar, Agartala, West Tripura - 799022.
2. The Registrar, Tripura University, having its office at
Suryamaninagar, P.O. Suryamaninagar, Agartala, West Tripura -
799022.
3. Dr. K B Jamatia, Joint Registrar, Tripura University, (Chairman)
Committee, Suryamaninagar, P.O- Suryamaninagar, Agartala,
West Tripura-799022.
4. Dr. B M Pandey, Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Member,
Committee, Suryamaninagar, P.O-Suryamaninagar, Agartala,
West Tripura-799022.
5. Dr. Muneendra Mishra, Assistant Registrar (I/C), Tripura
University, Convenor, Committee, Suryamaninagar, P.O-
Suryamaninagar, Agartala, West Tripura-799022.
.........Respondent (s);
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Uttara Singha, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 15.09.2025
Date of Judgment & Order : 09.12.2025
Whether Fit for Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Heard Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Ms. Uttara Singha, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents-University.
[2] The father of the petitioner, an employee of Tripura
University, died in harness on 26.11.2005. The petitioner, being at that
time Madhyamik qualified, applied for a job under the Die-in-Harness
Scheme on 19.12.2005 and thereafter, the petitioner was engaged as a
Daily Rated Worker ('DRW', for short) (Group-C) on a temporary basis
vide office memorandum dated 27.12.2005 issued by the University
Authority. She, accordingly, joined on the following date and since then
she has been serving there. Later on, her designation has been changed
to Monthly Rated Worker ('MRW', for short) (Group-C).
[3] While serving in the University, with the permission of the
authority, she prosecuted her further studies and passed Higher
Secondary Examination. She also obtained graduation from Tripura
University itself under the Distance Education Scheme and then Diploma
in Computer Application before 31.03.2010.
[4] It is asserted by her that she has been serving in different
wings of the University without any blemish and for some time she was
placed in the Vice Chancellor‟s Secretariat and then in Receipt &
Dispatch Section of the Registrar Branch and also in the Directorate of
Distance Education, which are all of a perennial nature of works related
to the day-to-day functioning of the University.
[5] On 07.05.2007, the University issued a memorandum
(Annexure-11) for scrutinizing and examining the feasibility for
regularization of the services of DRW/Casual Workers and asked for
submission of different documents of the concerned employees, but it is
not clear as to what happened thereafter.
[6] The petitioner had been getting fixed wages since her
joining the service, which were enhanced from time to time and the
University Authority thereafter decided to extend the benefit of „equal
pay for equal work‟ to 87 Casual/DR Workers vide an office order dated
22.09.2020 (Annexure-17), and the petitioner also got benefit of the
same. The financial benefit as provided under the said decision was
fixed pay of Rs.19,900/- plus admissible DA to all the employees.
[7] The petitioner submitted one representation on 09.08.2019
(Annexure-14) to the Vice Chancellor of the University for absorbing her
into a regular post, as she had already completed more than 13 years of
service as an MRW, but till date she has not been so absorbed. She
raised one plea in her representation that one Smt. Basanti Debbarma
(not a party to the instant writ petition) who was initially employed as a
DRW (Group-C) on a temporary basis like the petitioner, after six
months of her service was absorbed against the regular post of Lower
Division Clerk ('LDC', for short). The respondents, in their counter-
affidavit, have categorically denied this assertion, stating that said Smt.
Basanti Debbarma appeared in the regular recruitment process, and
after qualifying for the examination, she got the regular job. This fact is
thus a disputed fact; the Court will not further dwell upon this issue.
[8] Anyway, the petitioner, being unsuccessful in her prayer for
her absorption against regular post, preferred WP(C) No.608 of 2021
before this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment
dated 21.12.2021, taking note of the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Versus
Umadevi (3) & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, and Narendra Kumar
Tiwari & others Versus State of Jharkhand & others, (2018) 8
SCC 238, observed that the University had no scheme or rule for
regularization of DRW or contingent worker on completion of certain
period of service and, therefore, the Court was not in a position to pass
any order for regularization of the petitioner as a matter of right. It was
also further observed that the petitioner was working for more than 15
years and was discharging the regular function of LDC on a fixed
remuneration and as per above said decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in Umadevi (3) (supra) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra),
on completion of 10(ten) years of service, one contingent or daily rated
worker should be regularized. Therefore, the Bench directed the
University-respondents to consider the absorption of the petitioner in
the post of Lower Division Clerk by granting relaxation wherever is
necessary within three months from the date of receipt of copy of that
order.
[9] In terms of the said judgment, a committee was constituted
by the University Authority to scrutinize the case of the petitioner but no
decision was ever communicated to her. After waiting for more than six
months, the petitioner filed a contempt application bearing Cont. Cas
(C) No.85/2022 and thereafter, the respondents filed an appeal bearing
W.A. No.159/2022 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court,
thereafter, dismissed the said appeal without any interference making
the following observations:
"6. We have considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties and taken
note of the relevant material facts placed on
the record. We have also perused the
impugned judgment. In our view, there is no
specific direction upon the respondents to
absorb the petitioner by the Writ Court. The
Writ Court has only directed the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner for
absorption in the post of LDC. Needless to say,
such consideration has to be made in
accordance with law taking into account all
relevant criteria which are applicable for such
regularization. The respondents instead of
taking a decision in the matter have
approached this Court in appeal. As such, we
do not find any reason to interfere in the
impugned judgment. The learned counsel for
the appellants submits that the time period for
consideration of the claim of the petitioner may
be extended as the respondent-University has
been pursuing this appeal. Be that as it may,
let such consideration be made within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of the
copy of this order.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed
without any interference.
Pending application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of."
Thus, the Division Bench of this Court directed the University
Authority to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law,
taking into account all relevant criteria that are applicable for such
regularization.
[10] Before learned Writ Court, it was argued that there was no
rule or scheme under the University for regularization of the services of
such categories of employees and that no document was produced by
the petitioner that she had the typing speed of 30 words per minute.
Before the Division Bench, it was argued on behalf of the University that
there was no vacant sanctioned post at the relevant point of time when
the petitioner was engaged on compassionate grounds. Therefore, it
appears that different stands were taken before the two Courts by the
University at the time of hearing. In the present case, the stand of the
University is that there is no scheme or system for regularization of
service as of date, and that the petitioner was appointed as a DRW on a
temporary basis and not on account of any die-in-harness ground.
[11] Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
adverting to the facts of the case, submits that despite such
longstanding service of the petitioner in important chairs of the different
departments/ sections of the University discharging duties of a perennial
nature, she has not been regularized and that despite the directions of
the Court, the University failed to take into consideration as to what
were observed by the High Court and denied her prayer of regularization
simply on the ground that the University had time and again instructed
her to apply for a regular post whenever an advertisement was issued
and, therefore, she could not be regularized in the manner she claimed.
Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submits that such
an approach of the University authority is arbitrary and unconstitutional
and that the petitioner has illegally been put under exploitative
employment.
[12] Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on some
recent decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in support of his
submissions which are referred hereunder:
(i) Shripal and another Versus Nagar Nigam,
Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 - In this case, the appellants
workmen were engaged as Gardeners (Malis) in the Horticulture
Department since the year 1998 and was discharging horticultural and
maintenance duties such as planting trees, maintaining parks, and
beautifying public spaces under the direct supervision of the Municipal
Authority. When he, along with other similarly situated persons claimed
for their regularization, they were terminated in 2005 orally. Finally, the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that the appellant workmen had
performed duties integral to the municipal functions and, therefore, the
general ban of the State Government on fresh recruitment cannot be
used to deny labour protections to long-serving workmen. It was also
further observed that the appellants continuously rendered their
services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade
and the Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or
contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent
in nature. Finally, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court quashed the termination
of the said workmen and they were directed to be reinstated in their
service, treating it to be a continuous service as if no termination had
taken place.
(ii) Jaggo Versus Union of India and others
with Anita and others Versus Union of India and others, AIR
2025 SC 296: AIR Online 2024 SC 870 - In this case, it was
observed that the appellants were engaged as part-time worker on ad-
hoc basis in Central Water Commission during the period from 1993 to
1999 as Safaiwali who were primarily responsible for cleaning and
maintaining the office premises and one of the appellants was appointed
as a Khallasi/Mali. They sought regularization of their services and being
refused thereby ultimately they approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
While dealing with their such claim, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court found
despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants were
performing essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over
extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades.
Regarding the law laid down in Umadevi (3) (supra), the Apex Court at
paragraph-20 observed that the decision in Umadevi (3) (supra) did
not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of
service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its
instrumentalities. Rather, said judgment sought to prevent backdoor
entries and illegal appointments but where the appointments were not
illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served
continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a
considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution became
paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing
tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time,
transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario
demanding fair regularization. But the Government Departments often
cite the judgment in Umadevi (3) (supra) to argue that no vested right
to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the
judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is
appropriate and this selective application distorts the judgment's spirit
and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades. Finally, the Apex Court
directed that the services of said appellants be regularized.
(iii) In Dharam Singh & Others Versus State of
U.P. & Another, [Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 decided on
19.08.2025], as relied on by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, it was
observed at the prelude of the judgment itself that when public
institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform
permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks are placed on
sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and
dignity. In that case the appellants were engaged on daily-wage basis as
Class-IV employees and Driver (Class-III). In U.P. Higher Education
Services Commission there were no rule for regularization and no
vacancies existed against which the appellants could be considered. In
said backdrop, while granting regularization of service of appellants of
those cases, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court also observed that the State
was held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its
perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful
engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay
to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a
conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these
workers. It was also held that "ad hocism" thrives where administration
is opaque and the State Departments must keep and produce accurate
establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements,
and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious
engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial.
[13] Ms. Uttara Singha, learned counsel for the respondents-
University, submits that the petitioner was not appointed on Die-in-
Harness Scheme and that appointment was also not against any
sanctioned post and moreover, there was no policy or scheme of the
University for regularization of its employee and in view of above, her
regularization was not permissible.
[14] Ms. Singha, learned counsel also relies on the decision of the
Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case
of Umadevi (3) (supra). Ms. Singha, learned counsel for the
respondents-University further relies on some decisions of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in support of her submissions which are also referred
hereunder:
(i) State of Karnataka & others Versus M. L.
Kesari & others, (2010) 9 SCC 247 - In this case, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court observed that where the appointments are not made or
continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do
not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments
will be considered to be illegal but where the person employed
possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against
sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process
of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be
irregular. It was also further observed that Umadevi (3) (supra) casts
a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps
to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who
had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of
any interim orders of Courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure and
that the object behind the direction given in Umadevi (3) (supra) was
to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous
service without the protection of any interim orders of Courts or
tribunals, before the decision in Umadevi (3) (supra) was rendered,
should be considered for regularization in view of their long service and
also secondly to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not
perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad-
hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the
ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby
defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to
recruitment and appointment.
(ii) In Sri Satya Ranjan Dey and another Versus
the State of Tripura and others, [WP(C) NO.5/2023 decided on
06.09.2023], as relied on by Ms. Singha, learned counsel, a Coordinate
Bench of this Court regarding the prayer of regularization of service of
the petitioners of that case against Group-D post rejected such claim of
regularization on several grounds amongst which some grounds were
that there was no sanctioned post and that they are not appointed with
the concurrence of Finance Department and that there was considerable
delay in approaching the Court with such prayer of regularization when
already the State Government had withdrawn the policy of
regularization. Said case, unlike the present case in hand, was decided
mainly based on the scheme of regularization as framed by the State
Government for his employees and subsequent withdrawal of such
scheme after such process of regularization was completed.
[15] In the present case, as it has been the stand of the
University Authority that they have no regularization scheme framed for
regularization of those persons who were irregularly appointed and have
continued to serve the institution for more than a decade. The petitioner
was given appointment on 27.12.2005 and the judgment of Umadevi
(3) (supra) was passed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court thereafter on 10.04.2006 to stop the practice of
appointment of any person without following the constitutional scheme
and the procedure of regular appointment. Umadevi (3) (supra)
completely discouraged such policy adopted by different institutions for
appointment of persons without following the due procedure of the
prescribed rules of such appointment and as a onetime measure, it was
directed at paragraph No.53 of the said judgment that there might be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) of duly
qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts had been made and
those employees had continued to work for ten years or more and in
that contexts, the Union of India and the State Government and their
instrumentalities were directed to take steps to regularize the services
of such irregularly appointed persons, who have worked for ten years or
more in duly sanctioned posts.
[16] When such decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was
rendered, Tripura University was functioning as the State University and
thereafter, it started functioning as a Central University w.e.f.
02.07.2007. In both status, the University in compliance with the
direction given in Umadevi (3) (supra) ought to have framed a scheme
for such regularization. Instead, without doing so, they started taking
the fruit of labour of the person like the petitioner who was appointed on
a temporary basis by engaging her in the works or duties of the
University which were of perennial in nature.
[17] If there was no scheme framed for giving appointments in
die-in-harness cases, it is not clear as to what had prompted the
University Authority to appoint the present petitioner as DRW (Group-
C). Though it had been once the plea of the University that there was no
sanctioned post when she had claimed her regularization, it appears that
on 23.11.2020, the University itself issued an advertisement for filling
up of 10(ten) nos. of posts of LDC and some other Group-C and Group-B
posts. In previous litigation before the Division Bench also the
University argued that there was no vacant sanctioned post at the
relevant point of time when she was engaged on compassionate
appointment. However, after taking note of said submission, the
Division Bench of this Court maintained direction of the learned Single
Judge and asked University to consider the case of the petitioner, in
accordance with law, taking into account all relevant criteria which are
applicable for such regularization.
[18] However, from the impugned minutes of meeting dated
16.05.2023 (Annexure-27) it appears that the University has not at all
taken into consideration of all the above said relevant factors which as
per law ought to have been taken into consideration. They simply
rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she was asked to
apply for a regular post whenever such advertisement for filling up of
such posts was published but she did not appear. This compliance was
not at all in spirit of what the Court had directed the University to do.
[19] In view of above, the decision of the University rejecting the
prayer of the petitioner for regularization as borne in the minutes of
meeting dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure-27) is hereby quashed. The
respondents are again directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner
for her regularization in service taking into account what has been
directed by the Division Bench of this Court in previous litigation and
also all the relevant factors and also in the light of the decisions of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court as indicated above and other decisions in this
regard.
[20] A reasoned decision shall be taken by the respondents
within 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 have been arrayed in this writ petition by
their respective names but the directions so issued in this case will be
applicable to the respondents not against their personal capacity rather
against their official capacity.
With such observations and directions, the instant Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Munna MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2025.12.11 09:59:54 +05'30'
