[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Asis Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 16 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No.178 of 2025
Sri Asis Debnath,
son of late Sachindra Debnath, resident of
village- Sarashima, Belonia, South Tripura,
PIN-799155
......... Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary, Department
of Revenue, Government of Tripura, New
Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799010
2. The Secretary,
Department Finance, Government of
Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New
Capital Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New
Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN-799010
3. The Under Secretary,
Revenue Department, Government of
Tripura
4. The DM & Collector,
South Tripura District, Belonia
........ Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Ms. A. Debbarma, Adv.
For the Respondent (s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA
Date of hearing : 23.09.2025
Date of delivery of : 16.12.2025
Judgment & order
YES NO
Whether fit for reporting : √
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
The petitioner was initially engaged as a Casual Worker
on 26.12.2011 by the District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura,
in his establishment, which was later on, approved by the State
Government and thereafter, by memorandum dated 29.06.2015,
the District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura engaged the
petitioner along with other 7[seven] persons as Daily Rated Worker
[DRW] with effect from the date of their respective joining as
Casual Worker. Since then, the petitioner has been discharging his
duties as a Caretaker [Group-D]. It is stated that he was engaged
against the duly sanctioned post, which is evident from the letter
dated 17.05.2014, issued by the DM & Collector, South Tripura to
the State Government seeking approval for their engagement as
DRW.
[2] The District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura,
thereafter sent another letter dated 21.02.2022, referring to his
earlier letter dated 17.11.2021, for according necessary approval
for regularization of above said 8[eight] DRWs posted in his office.
The name of the petitioner was reflected against Sl. No.5. The State
Government, in turn, vide letter dated 23.03.2022 asked the
District Magistrate & Collector to follow the memorandum dated
31.07.2018 of Finance Department whereby the scheme of
regularisation of DRW/Casual Worker/Contingent Worker were
withdrawn by State. In the list of 8[eight] persons as proposed by
the District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura for regularisation,
the name of the petitioner No.1 was placed at serial No.5 and below
him, other three persons were Smt. Runu Majumder (Baidya), Smt.
Juthika Chakraborty and Sri Rajib Nath.
[3] After rejection of such a proposal by the State
Government, other 5[five] DRWs including the petitioner [except
those 3 persons] filed W.P.(C) No.383 of 2022 in this High Court
praying for regularization of their services and also for equal pay,
like other regular Group-D employees. The said writ petition was
dismissed by the learned Writ Court with an observation that the
appointments of the petitioners were illegal and dehors the
constitutional scheme. The learned Writ Court also relied on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., (2006)
4 SCC 1, National Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Somveer Singh, (2006)
5 SCC 493 and Renu vs. District & Sessions Judge, Tis-
Hajari, (2014) 14 SCC 50. This way both the prayers for
regularization and equal pay were turned down by the learned Writ
Court.
[4] The present writ petitioner only thereafter preferred an
appeal before the Division Bench bearing No.W.A.32 of 2024 and
the Division Bench, while disposing the matter, observed that if the
writ petitioners had been engaged on daily-rated basis or
contractual basis against a vacant sanctioned post and had
continued for more than 10 years of service, their cases for
minimum scale of pay required consideration at the level of
competent authority and accordingly, the respondents were
directed to consider the claim of the said writ petitioners for
minimum scale of pay from the post on which they were working.
The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:
We have considered the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the
impugned judgment as well. It is true that the
regularization scheme has been repealed on 31st July,
2018 by the State of Tripura but if the writ petitioners
have been engaged on daily rated basis or contractual
basis against sanctioned vacant post of drivers and have
been continued for more than 10 years by now since
their engagement in 2011, the petitioners' case for
minimum scale of pay requires consideration at the level
of the competent authority. The writ petitioners may not
have entered through the regular recruitment process by
way of an advertisement but have continued to
discharge the duties as drivers for more than 10 years on
the wages of a daily rated employee. As such, we are
inclined to direct the respondents authority to consider
the claim of the writ petitioners for minimum scale of
pay to the writ petitioners on the post they are working.
The writ petitioners are at liberty to make a
representation within 2[two] weeks along with
supporting documents. The competent authority under
the respondents would consider the claim of the writ
petitioners in accordance with law on such prayer within
a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy
of such representation along with a copy of this order.
[5] It requires mention that after the learned Writ Court
dismissed the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.383 of 2022 filed by
the present writ petitioner and others, the other 3[three] persons
listed in the proposal for regularisation, namely said Runu
Majumder (Baidya), Juthika Chakraborty and Rajib Nath, filed a
separate writ petition bearing No. W.P.(C) 384 of 2024 praying for
their regularisation on similar grounds and in the said writ petition,
the learned Writ Court directed the respondents, particularly the
DM & Collector, South Tripura to consider the regularization of the
services of the said petitioners since they had already completed 10
years of service. It appears that in the said subsequent writ
petition, none of the parties disclosed the result of the previous
decision of the said Writ Court in W.P.(C) No.383 of 2022.
[6] Anyway, after the direction given by the Division Bench
of this Court, the present writ petitioner submitted a representation
to the respondents in light of the said direction of the Division
Bench but his representation was again turned down by the DM &
Collector, South Tripura with the observation of the State
Government that there was no policy decision of the State
Government to regularise the DRW, Casual Workers etc. However,
the State Government enhances the remuneration of such
employees from time to time and therefore, the claim of the
present petitioner for minimum of the pay scale of a Group-D
employee was not considered.
[7] In view of the above, the present writ petitioner again
filed this present writ petition, seeking the following redresses:
"(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 Petitioner in the posts of
Group-C on completion of 10 years of service as DRWs
with all consequential, financial and ancillary benefits.
(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 whereby directing the Respondents to
allow the benefit of equal pay for equal work by paying
the wages of the Petitioner at par to the lowest stage of
the pay scale of the post of Care Taker w.e.f., from the
date of engagement as Care Taker on DRW basis.
(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
frame scheme for regularization of DRWs/
Casual/Contingent/ PTW, etc. Workers and similar other
Workers, who have completed 10 years of service.
(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
Memorandum, dated, 28.08.2024, issued by the DM &
Collector, South Tripura, Belonia issued."
[8] During hearing, learned senior counsel, Mr. P. Roy
Barman, appearing for the petitioner submits that at present, the
petitioner is not pressing the reliefs for regularization and regular
pay scale at par with the Group-D employee as the said matters are
already decided by this Court. However, in view of the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court as indicated above, he is now
pressing solely for the relief of the minimum of the pay scale of a
Group-D employee. Learned senior counsel also submits that for
more than 10 years continuously, the petitioner has been working
as Caretaker (Group-D) which is the perennial nature of work
required to maintain the functioning of the establishment of the
District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura and therefore, he is
eligible to get the minimum of the pay scale of a Group-D
employee. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel further relies on
the following decisions:
(i) Sri Basudeb Debnath & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors., [WP(C) No.1162 of 2018 decided on 09.03.2021
by the Division Bench of this Court]- In this case, the
petitioners were engaged as casual worker on the post of
Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) on fixed monthly wages. They
were discharging duties of perennial nature such as
cleaning, sanitation work, upkeeping of sections etc. Some
of them in such status completed 20 years of service and
some of them completed more than 10 years. Once, the
respondents issued guidelines for getting such work done
through outsourcing wherefore the petitioners feared
termination. They approached the High Court and the High
Court dismissed the petition with liberty to approach the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of
the matter with the direction to the Department to dispose
of the representation of the petitioners within 4 months.
Against the said order, the petitioner approached the High
Court again. The Division Bench of the High Court directed
the respondents to form a committee to consider the cases
of the petitioners for regularization if the petitioners
fulfilled the conditions that they possessed necessary
qualifications at the time of their initial engagement, and
that they had already completed 10 years of engagement
before the High Court in the first writ petition had granted
them protection against termination. It was also further
directed that none of the petitioners should be disengaged
for outsourcing the work, however it would be open for the
department to make appointments on regular basis upon
which the concerned petitioners, if not qualified for
regularization shall have to vacate the place. Further
direction was that till any of those petitioners were
regularized and till those petitioners who did not qualify for
regularization but continue to be engaged in the same
capacity, they shall be paid daily wages at the minimum
scale of pay prescribed for the post in question without
attendant allowance. The Division Bench relied on the
decision of Apex Court in case of State of Punjab and
Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 148 and
observed at paragraph No.17 that it would not be open for
the State to continue to pay fixed wages to the workers for
decades together when (i) their engagement was against
sanction posts; (ii) they have been continued for long
period of time; (iii) they fulfill the education qualifications
prescribed for the post; (iv) the work is perennial in
nature; (v) they have been engaged virtually continuously
throughout since their initial engagements and (vi) they
are doing the same work which regular staff members are
doing.
(ii) Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors., 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1735- In this case, in the prelude itself, it
is observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when public
institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to
perform permanent tasks, equity demands that those tasks
are placed on the sanctioned posts, and those workers are
treated with fairness and dignity.
[9] Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the
respondents, submits that the petitioner is neither entitled to get
regularization, nor equal pay scale like a regular Group-D employee
as the duties, responsibilities and mode of selection of the
petitioner and the regular Group-D employee are quite different
and therefore, he is not entitled to claim equal pay for equal work.
Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. GA also relies on the following decisions:
(i) Sri Sukradhan Chakma & Ors. vs. The State of
Tripura & Ors., (WA No. 10 of 2023 decided on
05.03.2024 by Division Bench of this Court)- In this case,
the petitioners were working as DRW for more than a decade
and claimed for regularization of their services against Group-
D posts. According to them, they had requisite qualifications
for that posts and they were also discharging their duties for
more than 08 hours, but they were not paid the pay scale
pertaining to the said post. They also claimed minimum wages
as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1956. During continuation of
their such engagement, the State Government framed a
scheme for regularization of such DRWs, casual workers,
contractual workers etc. and before the writ petition was filed,
said scheme was withdrawn. The Writ Court dismissed the
petition for regularization on the ground that at that time,
there was no policy of the Government existing for
regularization. Finally, the Division Bench upheld the decision
of the Ld. Writ Court with observations that during that time,
the regularization scheme was not in vogue and such
regularization could only be made against sanctioned vacant
posts. This decision is misplaced by Ld. Addl. GA. inasmuch
as, the petitioners did not press for their claim of
regularization in this writ petition now.
(ii) S.H. Baig v. The State of M.P., AIR Online 2018 SC
388 (decided on 25.09.2018)- At paragraph no.12, it is
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even if persons are
holding same rank/designation and having similar powers,
duties and responsibilities they can be placed in different
scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of
equal pay for equal work. It is also further observed that in
that case, the qualifications for appointment, mode of
recruitment, training, the duties and responsibilities not being
similar, the appellants were not entitled for the relief of equal
pay.
(iii) Shah Samir Bharatbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat &
Ors., [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.1347 of
2024 decided on 22.08.2025 with some other appeals
analogously]- In one set of appeals, the Writ Court granted
minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors to the respondents
contractually appointed and the Letter Patent Appeals were
dismissed. In another set, the Writ Court granted complete
parity of pay of contractual Assistant Professors with similarly
placed Assistant Professors. In Letter Patent Appeals, said
judgment was set aside. Hon'ble Supreme Court finally
directed that the contractually appointed Assistant Professors
should be entitled to the minimum pay scale admissible to
Assistant Professors and arrears calculated at the rate of 8%
should be paid from three years preceding the date of filing of
the writ petition. Practically, this decision gives supports to
the claim of the petitioner.
[10] This Court has considered the submissions of both sides.
[11] It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not enter
into the service through a regular process of selection, but he was
appointed as a DRW against a regular sanctioned post. It is also an
undisputed fact that for more than 10 years, he has been
discharging his duties as a Caretaker (Group-D). It was mentioned
by the District Magistrate & Collector, South Tripura vide his letter
dated 17.05.2014 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] that after
4[four] new districts were formed in Tripura, total 69 posts for the
said 4[four] districts were also created by the State Government
and the concerned SDMs and BDOs of those districts were asked to
explore whether any surplus workers were found in those Districts
or not, but no surplus worker was found there though vehicles were
provided by the Government to be driven for official duties and the
posts of Bearer, Guard, Caretaker were also to be filled up
immediately at that time. Considering that necessity, the DM &
Collector sought approval from the State Government for
engagement of the petitioner and other persons as a DRW on
contract basis against the available vacancy of the post. Therefore,
such assertions of the DM & Collector itself signify that for day-to-
day running of the business of the office of the District Magistrate &
Collector, South Tripura, there was an urgent need of engagement
of DRWs for which the petitioner was engaged and since his
engagement in the year 2011, he has been discharging his duties
which are perennial in nature. His duty is, therefore, not seasonal
or temporary for a certain period as a stopgap arrangement. When
the employer is requiring and also receiving regular work of a
Group-D continuously for more than a decade, the State is under
legal obligation to pay due remuneration to him against such work.
[12] In Jagjit Singh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
observes that it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to
deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work
cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties
and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an
action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of
human dignity. Anyone, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage
does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter
to his family, at the cost of his self-respect and dignity, at the cost
of his self-worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that
his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the
lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others
similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement,
emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is
oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary
subjugation.
[13] In this case, it was also held that the temporary
employees are also entitled to get the benefit of "equal pay for
equal work" provided they are to establish that they were rendering
similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by
regular employee. The relevant paragraph nos.45 to 45.5 of the
judgment is excerpted herein below:
"45. We shall now attempt an analysis of the judgments,
wherein this Court declined to grant the benefit of "equal
pay for equal work" to temporary employees in a claim
for pay parity with regular employees:
45.1. In Harbans Lal case [Harbans Lal v. State of H.P.,
(1989) 4 SCC 459 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 71], daily-rated
employees were denied the claimed benefit under the
principle of "equal pay for equal work", because they
could not establish that the duties and responsibilities of
the post(s) held by them were similar/equivalent to
those of the reference posts under the State
Government.
45.2. In Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case [Grih
Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India, (1991)
1 SCC 619 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 621], ad hoc employees
engaged in the Kendras were denied pay parity with
regular employees working under the New Delhi
Municipal Committee, or the Delhi Administration, or the
Union of India, because of the finding returned in the
report submitted by a former Chief Justice of India that
duties and responsibilities discharged by employees
holding the reference posts were not comparable with
the posts held by members of the petitioner Union.
45.3. In State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj [State of
Haryana v. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S)
828], this Court took a slightly different course, while
determining a claim for pay parity raised by daily wagers
(the respondents). It was concluded that daily wagers
held no post, and as such, could not be equated with
regular employees who held regular posts. But herein
also, no material was placed on record to establish that
the nature of duties performed by the daily wagers was
comparable with those discharged by regular employees.
Be that as it may, it was directed that the State should
prescribe minimum wages for such workers and they
should be paid accordingly.
45.4. In State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh [State of
Punjab v. Surjit Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 514 : (2009) 2 SCC
(L&S) 696], this Court held that for the applicability of
the principle of "equal pay for equal work", the
respondents who were daily wagers, had to establish
through strict pleadings and proof that they were
discharging similar duties and responsibilities as were
assigned to regular employees. Since they had not done
so, the matter was remanded back to the High Court for
a redetermination on the above position. It is therefore
obvious, that this Court had accepted that where duties,
responsibilities and functions were shown to be similar,
the principle of "equal pay for equal work" would be
applicable even to temporary employees (otherwise the
order of remand would be meaningless, and an exercise
in futility).
45.5. It is, therefore, apparent that in all matters where
this Court did not extend the benefit of "equal pay for
equal work" to temporary employees, it was because the
employees could not establish that they were rendering
similar duties and responsibilities as were being
discharged by regular employees holding corresponding
posts."
In this case, it was also observed that the ratio rendered
in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, (1996) 11 SCC 77 was
irreconcilable and inconsistent with the large number of judgments,
some of which were of larger Benches, where the benefit of the
principle of "equal pay for equal work" was extended to temporary
employees including daily wager.
[14] In Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2025 SC
296, as relied on by Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, 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.
[15] Further, in Shah Samir Bharatbhai (supra) as relied on
by Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A., also the Hon'ble Supreme Court
directed the respondents to pay minimum pay scale admissible to
Assistant Professors, the appellants of that case, who were
contractually appointed as Assistant Professor and observed that
there was no material whatsoever drawing out a distinction
between the duties and functions performed by them and other
colleagues appointed on regular basis.
[16] Admittedly, the present writ petitioner is working as a
Caretaker (Group-D) in the establishment of the District Magistrate
& Collector, South Tripura and therefore, discharging the function of
a Group-D employee. There is no reason to deny him the fruit of his
labour by giving him a low remuneration during his whole career
when the nature of his work is indispensable for running the
functioning of the office of the department. When he is working
years after years to keep day-to-day official business in running
condition, he deserves to be treated with fairness and dignity.
[17] It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dharam Singh (supra) that the long-term extraction of regular
labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public
administration and offends the promise of equal protection and "ad-
hocism" thrives where administration is opaque.
[18] Considering all these aspects, it is held that the writ
petitioner is entitled to get the minimum of the basic pay scale of a
Group-D employee without any allowance, from the date of
completion of his 10 years of service as a DRW employee. Arrears,
if any, shall be paid by the respondents within 3[three] months
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and order. The
respondents are directed to act accordingly in terms of the above.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
JUDGE
SUJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH
Date: 2025.12.17 16:56:36 +05'30'
Sujay
