Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Runu Majumder (Baidya) on 6 May, 2025
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
I.A No.1 of 2024 in WA No.111 of 2024
WA No.111 of 2024
1. The State of Tripura, to be represented by the Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat
Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-
799006.
2. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, New
Secretariat Building, 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.
......... Applicant/Appellant(s).
VERSUS
1. Runu Majumder (Baidya), W/o Uttam Baidya, R/o Vill- Baraj Colony,
P.O - Sarashima, P.S. Belonia, South Tripura, Pin-799155.
2. Juthika Chakraborty, W/o Bimal Chakraborty, D/o Rash Behari
Chakraborty, R/o Vill- Sarasima, Boroj Colony, South Tripura, Pin-
799155.
3. Rajib Nath, S/o Satyajit Nath, R/o Vill and P.O. Bijoynagar, P.S.
Sabroom, South Tripura, Pin-799145.
......... Respondent(s).
For Applicant/Appellant (s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. PURKAYASTHA
Order
06/05/2025
Heard Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the applicants/appellants and also heard Mr.
Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Dipjyoti Paul,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the prayer for condonation of
delay of 32 days in preferring the instant writ appeal No.111/2024.
Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government Advocate
for the applicants/appellants submits that the delay is not intentional and it has
been properly explained.
Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the
respondents do not have serious objection to the prayer.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on being
satisfied with the explanation urged, this Court is inclined to condone the delay
in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, delay is condoned. IA stands disposed of.
The instant writ appeal is directed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 30.07.2024 passed in WP(C) No.384 of 2024 by the learned
Single Judge of this Court which reads as under:
"Heard Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A
appearing for the State-respondents.
The fact of the case is that the petitioners were appointed in
the month of December, 2012 as contractual workers under the
respondents. While they were discharging their duties as contractual
workers, the respondents under order dated 29.06.2015(Annexure-2
to the writ petition) had given an ex post facto approval treating the
petitioners as Daily Rated Workers w.e.f. the dates of their joining.
From the said Memo dated 29.06.2015, it appears that the petitioners
had joined to their respective services on 01.12.2012. A proposal has
been initiated by the District and Collector, South Tripura, Belonia in
the year 2022(21.02.2022) to regularise the services of eight numbers
of Daily Rated Workers including the petitioners. But till now, their
services have not been regularised.
Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the services of all the Daily Rated Workers whose
names appeared in the communication dated 21.02.2022 have been
regularised, but the services of the petitioners appearing at serial
nos.6, 7 and 8 have not been regularised most illegally and
arbitrarily. Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel has strenuously argued
that it is a clear case of discrimination and violation of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
On the other hand, Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A for the
State-respondents submits that the policy for regularisation of DRWs
has been repealed in the year 2018. At present, no policy for
regularisation of Daily Rated workers exists and in view of this, the
present petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
It is settled proposition of law that regularisation is not a
matter of right but a right to be considered. However, it is found in
the instant case that the respondent no.4, DM & Collector, South
Tripura, Belonia has considered regularisation of Sri Abhijit Das, Sri
Kamal Deb, Sri Rajib Debnath, Sri Bimalendu Tripura and Sri Asis
Debnath as per the direction of the Court. If same principle is
applied, then, regularization of the services of the petitioners also
may be considered. In the communication dated 21.02.2022, it is
stated that "Among the 8(eight) nos. DRWs, Sl. No.1 to 5 have
already been completed their 10(Ten) years of DRW period". So, it is
evident that though there is no policy for regularisation of DRWs, at
this moment, but the DM and Collector, South Tripura, Belonia
while regularizing the above 5(five) names under communication
dated 21.02.2022 has considered that they completed 10(ten) years of
service as DRW.
In view of this, I direct the respondents, particularly the DM
& Collector, South Tripura, Belonia to consider the regularisation of
the services of the petitioners since they have already completed
10(ten) years of service.
The process shall be completed within 3(three) months from
today.
With the above observation and direction, the instant petition
stands allowed and disposed."
The learned writ Court has only directed the respondents,
particularly the DM & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia, to consider the
regularization of the services of the writ petitioners since they have already
completed 10(ten) years of service. The process should be completed within a
period of three months. The learned writ Court has also referred to the fact that
there is no policy of regularization of DRWs but certain DRWs who had
completed ten years of engagement were regularized. The learned writ Court
has not rendered any finding on merits whether the writ petitioners case is fit to
be regularized. The matter has been left to the DM & Collector, South Tripura,
Belonia to take a decision.
Therefore, we are of the view that there is no justifiable reason for
the appellant-State to prefer this appeal. If the decision favours the writ
petitioners, then only the consequential benefits would accrue. If the decision is
adverse to the writ petitioners, they may have an opportunity to assail it in a
fresh proceeding.
Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the writ
petitioners submits that the writ Court has only directed the DM & Collector,
South Tripura, Belonia to consider the regularization of the services of the writ
petitioners within a time bound manner. No specific directions have been
issued for their regularization.
In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere in the
impugned order.
However, learned counsel for the appellants-State submits that the
time period of three months for taking such decision has expired by now, since
appellant-State was pursuing this appeal.
As such, the time period of three months for taking decision in the
matter by the DM & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia/the competent authority
shall be counted from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, the instant writ appeal [WA No.111 of 2024] is also
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(S. D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Munna S MUNNA SAHA Date: 2025.05.07 16:03:01 +05'30'
