Tripura High Court
Sebika Tripura vs The State Of Tripura on 13 February, 2025
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.90 of 2024
1. Sebika Tripura,
W/o-Nandi Kumar Tripura
R/o- Gobinda Sardar Para, I.C.D.S. Center Manu Bazar,
District:- South Tripura, Pin- 799143.
2. Draw Kumar Reang,
S/o- Kanuram Reang
R/o- Dakshin Karbook,
P.O- Karbook, District:- Gomati Tripura, Pin-799104
3. Abhadhan Tripura
S/o- Sri. Dibya Kr. Tripura,
Vill- Annadhan Para, P.O: Satchand
P.S- Manu Bazar, South Tripura.
4. Ajit Debbarma
S/o- Lt. Badural Debbarma,
Vill- Pafama Chara, P.O- L.C. Para.
P.S.- Ambassa, Dhalai Tripura.
...............Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
to be represented by the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building,
New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
P.S.- New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN: 799010.
2. The Member Secretary,
Tripura Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society
(TTWREIS), Gurkhabasti, Agartala, Tripura West,
3. The Principal
Residential School, Bhuratali
Sabroom, South Tripura.
4. The Principal,
Residential School Ashram School,
Karbook, Amarpur, South Tripura.
5. The Principal,
Residential School, Bhuratali, Sabroom,
South Tripura.
6. The Principal,
RMM Ashram School, Sadhutilla, Ambassa,
Dhalai Tripura,
............Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Senior Advocate.
: Mr. K. Nath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarkar, Adv.
Date of Hearing and
delivery of Judgment & Order : 13th February, 2025
Whether fit for reporting : No
Page 2 of 8
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Sarkar, learned
counsel appearing for the State-respondent nos.2 to 6.
[2] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel submits that
the petitioners were engaged as DRWs (Group-D) vide
memorandum dated 15.02.2010 (Annexure-1) issued by Tripura
Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society [in
short, TTWREIS] and the petitioners along with 08(eight) other
persons (in total 12 nos.) were also offered appointments to the
post of Group-D on DRW (Daily Rated Workers) basis and
accordingly, offer of appointments were also issued vide
memorandum dated 16.03.2010 (Annexure-2,3,4 & 5). Thereafter,
they joined as DRW either on 17.03.2010 and 18.03.2010 as
evident from memorandum dated 09.03.2010 issued by Member
Secretary, TTWREIS (Annexure-6).
[3] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel also submits
that meanwhile the Government of Tripura in view of the direction
issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of
Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Others, (2006) 4 SCC
1, issued some notifications regarding regularisation of such
DRWs/Casual Workers/Contingent Workers upon completion of
10(ten) years of their services, but services of none of the above
said twelve DRWs were regularised.
[4] Thereafter, two persons namely Sri Upendra Tripura and Sri
Senchandra Tripura filed WP(C) No.860 of 2021 before this Court
praying for regularization of their services as Group-D employee and a
coordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.03.2022 passed
the following order :
"23. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and having taken note of
the proposal sent by the Tripura Tribal Welfare Residential
Educational Institutions Society vide Note No.19 [as
reproduced], this court is of the view that the respondents
shall consider the regularization of the petitioners in the post
of Cook cum Mashalchi/Watchman in the scale of pay of
Rs.4,840-13,000/- GP-1,400/- under Tripura State Pay
Matrix, PB-1 Cell-1, Level-1, Entry pay-Rs.16,000/-, not in
terms of the policy of the government which have been
repealed but for their completing of their ten years of service
as the Daily Rated Worker. From the Note No.19, it is evident
that the competent authority in the Society has taken the
responsibility of finance, as may be required for such
regularization, having clearly declared as under :
"The requirement of fund for the said purpose will be borne
from the Grant to EMR School and Recurring Grant to Society
as per the details herein below :
For 01 (one) No. DRW staff
Present wages Fixed Pay Basis Regular Pay Basis
Monthly Yearly Monthly Yearly Monthly Yearly
6,900/- 82800/- 12,000/- 1,44,000/- 18,080/- 2,16,960/-
@ Rs.230/- per day (75% of
initial pay)
For 11(eleven) nos. DRW staff
Present wages Fixed Pay Basis Regular Pay Basis
Monthly Yearly Monthly Yearly Monthly Yearly
75,900/- 9,10,800/- 1,32,000/- 15,84,000/- 2,16,960/- 26,03,520/-
Therefore, the posts for such regularisation be created by the
respondents.
24. In this juncture, this court may refer to a decision of
the apex court in Nihal Singh and Others Versus State of
Punjab and Others reported in (2013) 14 SCC 65 where it
has been held :
"32. Coming to the other aspect of the matter pointed
out by the High Court - that in the absence of
sanctioned posts the State cannot be compelled to
absorb the persons like the appellants into the services
of the State, we can only say that posts are to be
created by the State depending upon the need to
employ people having regard to various functions the
State undertakes to discharge.
"Every sovereign Government has within its
own jurisdiction right and power to create
whatever public offices it may regard as
necessary to its proper functioning and its own
internal administration."42 American
Jurisprudence 902, para 31
33. It is no doubt that the assessment of the need to
employ a certain number of people for discharging a
particular responsibility of the State under the
Constitution is always with the executive Government
of the day subject to the overall control of the
Legislature. That does not mean that an examination by
a Constitutional Court regarding the accuracy of the
assessment of the need is barred.
35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need
for creation of the posts is a relevant factor reference
to which the executive government is required to take
rational decision based on relevant consideration. In
our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining
in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for
the creation of posts, the failure of the executive
government to apply its mind and take a decision to
create posts or stop extracting work from persons such
as the appellants herein for decades together itself
would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the
State."
[Emphasis added]
Therefore, the direction as regards creation and sanction
of posts has been made on the assessment made by the
competent authority for regularization of the petitioners and
others.
25. As regards the other two reliefs, it is directed that if
the petitioners are getting less wage than as directed in
Jagjit Singh(supra), than they shall be paid equivalent wage,
minimum to the scale of the Group-D employee of Tripura
Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society.
26. So far the recording of the education qualification is
concerned, the respondent No.2, after verification of the
qualification certificate if it is found that the same has been
issued from any institute, approved by the Government of
India or by the Government of Tripura that, may be reflected
in the service records of the petitioner No.1. The directions as
regards regularization and payment of wage shall be carried
within a period of 3 (three) months from the date when a
copy of this order will be furnished by the petitioners.
In terms of the above, the writ petition stands allowed
and disposed of.
No order as to costs."
[5] Challenging the said judgment, Mr. Roy Barman,
learned senior counsel submits, the respondents then preferred
WA No.153 of 2022 which was also dismissed the Division Bench
of this Court on 12.12.2022 and thereafter the respondents
preferred a Special Leave Petition(Civil) Diary No(S).20762 of
2023 and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 04.09.2023
dismissed the same.
[6] As submitted by Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior
counsel, another Ananta Reang standing on the same footing also
filed WP(C) No.737 of 2020 praying for such regularization and
vide judgment dated 10.05.2022, another coordinate bench of this
Court allowed said writ petition with the following observations:
"The facts are admitted, but the way the petitioner
has been treated is grossly arbitrary, as someone
cannot be discarded for being younger. It has been
admitted by the respondents that the petitioner was
senior in service to Santosh Kumar Tripura. Despite
that his name was not recommended. According to this
court, that was grossly arbitrary. As Santosh Kumar
Tripura has been appointed as the night watchman on
the fixed pay basis, against the regular post, the
petitioner ought to have been similarly treated by
engaging him against the fixed pay post of Cook cum
Masalchi, attendant and cleaner. The vacancies are
available, but the respondents have not been
considering his case.
It may also be noted that the petitioner was,
however, engaged as a Group-D personnel (DRW) but
initially the petitioner was accommodated against a
vacancy meant for the UR category candidates.
The respondent No. 2 has categorically stated in
para 10 of the reply that they are agreeable to appoint
the petitioner on a regular post on fixed pay basis and
for that purpose they have sent the records for
approval of the finance department. Such approval is
being awaited.
As this court finds that there is clear
discrimination against the petitioner while appointing
Santosh Kumar Tripura as his case was not at all
considered. The respondent No.2 shall appoint the
petitioner in the post of cook cum masalchi on similar
terms and conditions as laid down in the memorandum
dated 24.09.2011 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
Such appointment shall be made in favour of the
petitioner within three months from the date when the
petitioner shall submit a copy of the order to the
respondent No.2.
In terms of the above, this writ petition stands
allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs."
[7] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel further submits
that in compliance with the above said judgment of this Court the
services of said three petitioners were already regularized and
thereafter other two persons namely Tripurna Joy Tripura and
Dhananjoy Reang from the list of said twelve numbers of DRWs
also preferred WP(C) No.681 of 2023 and after taking note of all
these previous facts and also on consideration of the contentions
of the parties, this Court passed the order of regularization of
above said two petitioners in the following terms on 24.01.2025:
"16. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to consider the regularization
of the petitioners to the posts of Cook-Cum-
Masalchi/Watchman on completing their 10(ten) years
of service as DRWs. However, before such
regularization, the respondents will be at their liberty
to verify other conditions of the service as per the rules
and procedure. Their pay will be fixed notionally from
the date of regularization and actual financial benefits
shall be paid to them w.e.f. 3(three) years prior to the
filing of the writ petition as arrear. The entire process
should be completed within 3(three) months from the
date the petitioner furnishes copy of the judgment to
the respondents.
With the above said observation(s), the writ
petition is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of."
[8] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel, under such
circumstances, submits that in view of said decisions of this Court
and as also affirmed by the Apex Court in one case, the present
petition may be allowed.
[9] Learned counsel for the respondents argues that before
completion of 10(ten) years of service as per the said scheme of
regularization, that scheme itself was withdrawn. Moreover, those
schemes were not applicable in the case of present petitioners.
However, learned counsel admits that the present case is covered
by the decisions of above said cases.
[ 10 ] This court has given due consideration to the rival
contentions and the materials placed before the court. From Note
no.25 dated 07.05.2021(Annexure-R1), it appears that the
department itself proposed for regularization of services of above
said eleven persons including present four petitioners except one
who had already resigned from the service meanwhile and in Note
no.25 it was also stated by the concerned department that if their
regularization is considered, then for their salary etc., expenditure
may be met out of the fund received under Recurring Grants of
EMR Schools and Grant to Ashram Schools. Such note also
indicates that there was no fund constraints in case of their
regularization. Above all, taking note of all the contentions of the
parties, this Court already directed regularization of other similarly
situated persons as indicated above and as further affirmed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in one such case and it being also the admitted
position that the present case the petitioners are also covered by
the previous decisions, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
[ 11 ] Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to consider the
regularization of the present petitioners to the post of Group-D on
completion of 10(ten) their years of services as DRWs. However,
before such regularization the respondents will be at liberty to
verify other conditions of the services as per the rules and
procedure and their pay will be fixed notionally from the date of
regularization and actual financial beneficial will be paid to them
w.e.f. 03(three) years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition
as arrear.
The entire process should be completed by the
respondents within three months from the date the petitioners
furnish copy of the judgment to the respondents.
With such observation and directions, the writ petition
is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA
DUTTA +05'00'
Riki
