Tripura High Court
The Tripura State Council For Science & ... vs Sri Sanjoy Sen on 6 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.24 of 2024
1. The Tripura State Council for Science & Technology,
represented by its Member Secretary, Vigyan
Bhawan, Gorkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New
Capital Complex, West Tripura District, PIN-799006
2. The Joint Member Secretary,
Tripura State Council for Science & Technology,
Vigyan Bhawan, Gorkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S.
New Capital Complex, West Tripura District, PIN-
799006
......... Appellant(s)
-Versus-
1. Sri Sanjoy Sen
son of Sri Anil Chandra Sen, resident of North
Badharghat, P.O. & P.S. A.D. Nagar, District- West
Tripura, PIN-799003
2. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary, to the department of
Science & Technology and Environment, Government
of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
West Tripura District, PIN-799006
3. The Principal Secretary,
Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, P.O.
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, West Tripura
District, PIN-799006
........ Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA
Date of hearing : 08.04.2025
Date of delivery of : 06.05.2025
Judgment & order
YES NO
Whether fit for reporting : √
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated
16.08.2023 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P.(C) No.651 of
2022 in the following terms:
"For the reasons stated and discussed here-in-above, I
direct the Respondents-TSCST to complete the process
of regularization and absorption of the petitioner to the
post of Project Officer within a period of 3(three)
months from the date of this judgment and till such
process is completed, they are directed to release
minimum pay in the regular pay scale to the petitioner
as prescribed for the post of Project Officer from the
month of August, 2023, which is payable in the month
of September, 2023."
[2] Pursuant to an advertisement dated 26.06.2006 for
Walk-in-interview issued by Tripura University for recruitment in
the temporary post of Junior Project Fellow for a period of one and
half years in respect of the project, namely "Hardening of elected
tissue cultured plants and their demonstration plantation in
Tripura", the petitioner applied for the said post and was selected
by the University Authority. The petitioner accordingly joined to
the said post preceded by a letter dated 11.7.2006 sent by the
Registrar of the University in this regard to him. Prior to that, a
Memorandum of Understanding was entered on 23.08.2004
(Annexure-3 to the writ petition) between the Tripura University
and Tripura State Council for Science and Technology (the
appellant No.1) pertaining to said project. Pursuant to the terms
and conditions of said MOU, the writ petitioner was deputed to
Tripura State Council for Science and Technology (for short-
TSCST) w.e.f. 15.07.2006 and since then, he is continuing to
render his service in that institution. Meanwhile, one post of
Project Officer in the department of appellant No.1 fell vacant and
thereafter, by a conscious decision of the appellant No.1, followed
by the approval of the Member, Deputy Secretary as well as the
Principal Secretary, Department of Science, Technology and
Environment, and the Minister in the charge of the said
department, the petitioner was appointed as Project Officer
against said vacant post (UR category) on fixed pay basis with
remuneration of Rs.8,000/- per month keeping the said regular
post in abeyance vide memorandum dated 15.12.2012 (Annexure-
6 to the writ petition). Since then, he has been serving in said post
for more than a decade.
[3] It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that he joined
in the said post on a fixed pay basis but on completion of 5 years
of service on 18.12.2017 he was not favoured with the benefit of
regular pay scale of Project Officer nor his service was regularised
in terms of the memorandum issued by the Finance Department
dated 16.10.2007. Therefore, the writ petition was filed. Learned
Writ Court in that backdrop, passed the above said order.
[4] Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the
appellant-respondents argues that as per Clause 14(g)(iv) of
Rules and Regulations of the Council, the matter of creation of
posts in the Council and appointment, regularisation and
promotion of the employees of the council vest with the executive
body of the Council and in the instant case, no decision was ever
taken in any meeting of the executive body for appointment or
regularisation of service of the petitioner in any posts of the
council, rather he was engaged through an advertisement
published by the Tripura University and after participating in the
Walk-in-Interview, he was engaged on fellowship basis against the
vacant post of the University. According to Mr. Debbarma, learned
Addl. GA, the recruitment rules, meant for the post of a Project
Officer (Group-A) as framed by the Department of Science,
Technology and Environment, does not permit regularisation/
absorption of any fixed pay employee in the said post, rather
same is required to be filled up only through direct recruitment
and therefore, regularisation of the writ petitioner in the above
said post of Project Officer is not permissible as per the Rules.
[5] Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel, on the other hand,
appearing for the writ petitioner argues that the initial
engagement of the writ petitioner was through a fair process of
selection by publishing advertisement etc. and he also possesses
all the requisite qualifications meant for the post of Project Officer
and therefore, he is eligible for appointment to the said post as
regular employee. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel further argues
that when the writ petitioner was appointed on a fixed pay basis
against the said sanctioned post of Project Officer keeping the said
post in abeyance, there was no objection from the side of the
respondents regarding such appointment, rather, they derived the
services of the writ petitioner for such a long period and when his
claim for regularisation has come forward, they are trying to
somehow defeat the same. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel also
contends that apart from the writ petitioner, there were 12 others
project personnel in the Council and all of them have been
regularised against Group-A post with regular pay scale from the
date of their initial appointment, except one Dr. Jayabrata Roy
who was appointed on a fixed pay basis only for one year.
[6] Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel further submits that
after his appointment, the service book of the writ petitioner was
also opened by the Council treating him as a regular employee and
from time to time, he also received the revised/increased rate of
75% of the revised pay scale. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel refers
to Clause-17(ii) whereby power of appointment and dismissal of
the employees of Council with approval of Chairman or the Vice
Chairman, has been vested upon the Member Secretary of the
Council. According to Mr. Bhowmik, the Minister in charge of the
Department of Science, Technology and Environment is the Vice
Chairman of TSCST. The Member Secretary of the Council, Mr.
Bhowmik submits, is therefore the competent authority to appoint
any employee of the Council and the proposal for appointment of
the present writ petitioner was first initiated by Senior Scientific
Officer of the said department and the same was duly approved by
the Principal Secretary of administrative department i.e.
Department of Science, Technology and Environment and the
Minister in charge i.e. the Vice Chairman of the Council and
therefore, such appointment was made following the due
procedure of the related rules and it was not at all a case of unfair
or backdoor employment. Mr. Bhowmik further submits that as per
the regulations of the Council, the Principal Secretary of the
Administrative Department is the Member Secretary of the
Council.
[7] Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel strenuously argues that
keeping a person on a fixed pay basis for an indefinite period and
deriving the benefit of such service similar to a regular employee,
is nothing but exploitation of the petitioner and such a sanctioned
post cannot be kept in abeyance for uncertainty. Mr. Bhowmik,
learned counsel also in the alternative, argues that the post of
Project Officer is a Group-A post and the State does not have any
policy for appointment on a fixed pay basis against any Group-A or
Group-B post and therefore, the respondents are duty bound to
provide regular pay scale to the writ petitioner alongwith his
regularisation of service.
[8] We have given our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions of the parties and also gone through the record
meticulously. The learned Writ Court has categorically dealt with
all the issues as raised from the side of the appellants. The
relevant paragraphs containing the discussions and the decision of
the learned writ court on these points are extracted hereunder:
"6.1 Indubitably, the petitioner was first appointed
under Tripura University through regular recruitment
process as JPF. In terms of a MOU, the petitioner was
transferred on deputation to TSCST and in pursuance of
a policy decision taken by the competent authorities of
TSCST, the petitioner was appointed as Project Officer
on fixed pay basis of Rs.8000/- per month with a
stipulation that after 5 (five) years he would be
provided with regular pay scale applicable for the post
of Project Officer. The petitioner reported his joining
and it was accepted by the authority concerned w.e.f.
18.12.2012. Admittedly, since then, the petitioner has
been discharging his duties and responsibilities as
Project Officer under the TSCST. I have taken note of
the submission of learned senior counsel, Mr.
Bhattacharya that this post of Project Officer is not a
sanctioned post. That gives me to peruse the Memo.
dated 4th April,2007 [Annexure-X, page 79 of the
counter affidavit] and on reading of the same, it
transpires that the Government of Tripura had
approved the creation of post for the Department and
Bodies concurred by the Finance Department as
indicated under Annexure-I and Annexure-II enclosed
to the said Memorandum. Under Annexure-II at Sl.
No.25 of the said memorandum, it comes to fore that
the Government of Tripura has sanctioned two posts of
Project Officers/Scientific (TSCST) in the pay scale of
Rs.7,800-15,100/-. From the Memorandum dated
26.04.2023 [Annexure-Y, page 84 of the counter
affidavit] it is revealed that the Government of Tripura
has approved towards continuation of one post of
Project Officer with Pay Band-4 in the scale of pay of
Rs.15,600-39,100/-, with G.P. of Rs.5,400/- as per
ROP, 2017. It is further clear that on inspection of
roster Recruitment Rules for the post of Project Officer,
provisions have been made for two posts of Project
Officer under the said Recruitment Rules [Annexure-9,
page 33 of the writ petition]. So, there cannot be any
quarrel that the post of Project Officer is a sanctioned
post having financial concurrence by the appropriate
authority.
6.2 In view of this, I cannot agree with the
submissions of Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior
counsel appearing for the Respondents-TSCST that the
post of Project Officer has no financial concurrence and
it was not sanctioned by the Government of Tripura and
accordingly, it is repelled.
6.3 I have taken into consideration the decision
rendered in R.J. Pathan (supra). The facts of the case is
that the petitioners were claiming regularization
against the posts they were working under a Project
which was known as "Project Implementation Unit"
and the Division Bench of the concerned High Court had
directed the Government to create supernumerary post
for regularization of their services, which the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had interfered with. So, the facts of the
present case are wholly different from the facts of R.J.
Pathan (supra)."
[9] There is no dispute that the post of Project Officer is a
sanctioned post having the financial concurrence. The writ
petitioner relied on a memorandum dated 04.04.2007 issued by
the Department of Science, Technology and Environment which
shows that the State had approved regularisation of 24 posts
created earlier without concurrence of the Finance Department,
alongwith creation of 10 additional posts for meeting the
reservation roster and further creation of 36 other different posts
in the Council as per the statement of Annexure-II of the said
memorandum. The said Annexure-II shows that the sanction was
given for two posts of Project Officers in TSCST. Further another
post of Project Officer was also created by the State vide
memorandum dated 26.04.2023. Therefore, the learned Writ
Court rightly came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was
engaged on a fixed pay basis against the sanctioned post by
negating the claim of the appellants that his appointment was not
against any sanctioned post. So far the issue as raised before us
that only the executive body of the Council has the power to
appoint/regularise/promotion to the employees of the Council
against created/vacant post is concerned, it appears that the
Council in their counter affidavit submitted before the learned Writ
Court did not raise any such plea and for the first time took in this
appeal. On the other hand, it appears that appointment of the
petitioner was processed following the provisions of Clause-17 of
the Regulation and was finally approved by the Vice Chairman of
the Council.
[10] The appellants have not asserted that the writ
petitioner does not have the requisite qualification as is prescribed
for the post of Project Officer. It is also a fact that for a
considerable period i.e. for more than a decade, his service as
Project Officer is being utilised by the Council. It appears from
note No.4 of the Council (Annexure-5 of the writ petition) that a
conscious decision was taken by the Council by accepting the
proposal of Senior Scientific Officer for appointment of the writ
petitioner on a fixed pay basis against the vacant post of Project
Officer keeping the said post in abeyance. The said proposal was
accepted up to the level of the Ministry of Science, Technology and
Environment, Government of Tripura and accordingly, the
memorandum dated 15.12.2012 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition)
was issued by the Joint Member Secretary of the Council.
Therefore, even if the argument of the appellants' side is accepted
that the petitioner was appointed without approval of executive
body of the Council, it can at best said to be an irregular
appointment and not an illegal appointment.
[11] Recently, the Supreme Court of Indian in Jaggo Vs.
Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 was
dealing with an issue of regularisation of services of some
Safaiwali and Khallasi engaged on part time adhoc basis. Hon'ble
Supreme Court while taking into consideration of the facts that
despite being labelled as "part-time workers," they performed the
essential tasks of cleaning etc. on a daily and continuous basis
over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two
decades, observed that their engagement was not sporadic or
temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin
to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts.
Finally, while directing their regularisation in the service the Apex
Court held as under:
"25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have
been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they
have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-
term obligations owed to employees. These practices
manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and
integral to the functioning of an institution are
often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual,"
even when their roles mirror those of regular
employees. Such misclassification deprives
workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that
regular employees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as
seen in the present case. This practice undermines
the principles of natural justice and subjects
workers to a state of constant insecurity,
regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions, or
incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in
their roles, creating a systemic disparity between
them and their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed
by temporary employees, effectively replacing one
set of exploited workers with another. This
practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,
and paid leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects them
and their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to
curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted
or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish
between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It
categorically held that employees in irregular
appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned
posts and had served continuously for more than ten
years, should be considered for regularization as a one-
time measure. However, the laudable intent of the
judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on
its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of
employees, even in cases where their appointments are
not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural
formalities. Government departments often cite the
judgment in Uma Devi (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. This
selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and
purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees
who have rendered indispensable services over
decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment.
Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security,
and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that
they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with
international standards and sets a positive precedent
for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to
the overall betterment of labour practices in the
country."
[12] In the case in hand as discussed earlier, the entry of
the writ petitioner in the service was not illegal or through any
back door appointment. His appointment was against a sanctioned
post on fixed pay basis. The services which he has been rendering
are in relation to the essential tasks of functioning of the Council
for which sanction post has been created. His period of service in
said post is more than a decade and the fact that for such a long
period, he was allowed to serve so, leads to an inference that the
Council felt that his service was required for the purpose of proper
and regular functioning of the Council. Nothing is there that the
Council was ever dis-satisfied with the services rendered by him.
As stated, his service book is also maintained. Therefore, keeping
him on fixed pay basis for his whole career without any
regularisation will otherwise result in exploitation. According to us,
for above said reasons and factors as discussed above, merely for
the reason that said post of Project Officer is required to be filled
up by direct recruitment as per the recruitment rules, his claim for
regularisation should not be negated.
[13] The discussions as made in the foregoing paragraphs
also lead us to take note of Rule 6 of Recruitment Rules for the
post of Project Officer, TSCST as framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution by the State of Tripura which makes an avenue for
relaxation of any provision of such recruitment rules with respect
to any class or category of person. Rule 6 is excerpted hereunder:
"6. Power to relax:
Where the State Government is of the opinion that it is
necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order, for
reasons to be recorded in writing relax any of the
provisions of these rules with respect to any class or
category of persons."
[14] In view of the total background of the case and our
discussion on the foregoing Paragraph-13 above, we are also of
the view that this is an appropriate case for invoking the
provisions of Rule 6 of said Recruitment Rules of TSCST by the
State Government for regularisation of the present petitioner by
relaxing the provision of the Rules.
[15] In view of above said discussions, we do not find any
infirmity in the impugned judgment to be interfered with and
accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.
However, it is clarified that the period of 03 [three] months for
compliance of the direction of learned Writ Court to complete the
process of regularisation and absorption of the writ petitioner to
the post of Project Officer, shall be reckoned from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. Other directions of the learned Writ
Court remain unchanged.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
SUJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH
Date: 2025.05.07 15:11:38 +05'30'
Sujay
