Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Ajit Debnath, Son of Sri Anil Debnath & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary cum Commissioner to the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 1255, 1256, 1257, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310 & 1311 of 2016
Decided On : 23-06-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arijit Bhowmik.
For the Respondents: Mr. T.D. Majumder
Headnote:
Regularisation - Daily Rated Workers - [Memorandum dated 21.01.2009] - [F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part)] - The court discussed the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 which provided for the regularisation of services of DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers from the next date of completion of 10 years of service. The court found that there was no impediment in the way of regularisation of the petitioners after their completion of ten years of service, subject to the conditions laid down in the memorandum dated 21.01.2009.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were engaged as Daily Rated Workers (DRW) and sought regularisation after completing 10 years of service. The respondents resisted the regularisation claiming that the petitioners cannot claim regularisation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no impediment in the way of regularisation of the petitioners after their completion of ten years of service, subject to the conditions laid down in the memorandum dated 21.01.2009.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to be regularised as DRWs after completing 10 years of service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were entitled to be regularised as DRWs after completing 10 years of service, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the memorandum dated 21.01.2009.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to regularise the petitioners with effect from the next date on completion of ten years of service within a period of 6 months from the date of the judgment.
Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.
2. All these writ petitions being WP(C) 1255 of 2016 [Ajit Debnath VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1256 of 2016 [Nihar Deb Choudhury VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1257 of 2016 [Basu Ranjan Sarkar VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1295 of 2016 [Md. Chaidur Rahaman VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1296 of 2016 [Dipankar Deb VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1297 of 2016 [Maya Debnath VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1298 of 2016 [Ashotosh Bhowmik VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1299 of 2016 [Rajesh Dasgupta VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1300 of 2016 [Swapna Rani Saha VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1301 of 2016 [Namita Das VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1302 of 2016 [Chandan Ghosh VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1303 of 2016 [Tulshi Debnath VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1304 of 2016 [Bholanath Saha VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1305 of 2016 [Nantu Dutta VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1306 of 2016 [Bhajan Shil VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1307 of 2016 [Sankar Chandra Saha VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1308 of 2016 [Basab Nandi VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1309 of 2016 [Shipra Chakraborty VS State of Tripura & Others], WP(C) 1310 of 2016 [Rekha Ghosh VS State of Tripura & Others] & WP(C) 1311 of 2016 [Anjan Bardhan VS State of Tripura & Others] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as a common question of law in the backdrop resembling facts falls for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. The facts are mostly admitted. But the question that has been seriously resisted by the respondents is that the petitioners cannot claim regularisation.
3. All the petitioners were admittedly engaged as the Daily Rated Worker [the DRW in short] by virtue of the memorandum under No. F.6(2-23)-DYAS/Estt/08/(L-5)/13900-975 dated 26.03.2013. By the said memorandum, the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions were declared as DRW (Group-D) with effect from 10.08.2005 and they were posted in their earlier place of posting. In the said list, annexed to the memorandum dated 26.03.2013, the names of all the petitioners are appearing. The said declaration as made in the memorandum dated 26.03.2013 has been so made pursuant to the memorandum under No. F.34(6)-FIN(G)/2012 dated 22.09.2014 whereby the Finance Department asked the Secretary to the Youth Affairs & Sports Department to furnish the list of the persons who were working either as the Part Time Workers or on Contract etc. for purpose of creation of required number of posts of DRW(Group-D) for their engagement in those posts. Those who were found eligible to be engaged as the DRW (Group-D) after verification of their particulars, were engaged on acting upon the said memorandum dated 22.09.2014. In the process all the petitioners were declared as Daily Rated Workers (DRW) by the memorandum dated 26.03.2013.
4. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that to that aspect of the matter, there is no controversy.
5. Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 21.01.2009 [Annexure P/6 to the writ petition] all the petitioners were entitled to be regularised from the next date of completion of 10 years of service as the DRW. For purpose of reference the entire text of the said memorandum dated 21.01.2009 is extracted hereunder:
“MEMORANDUM
Subject : Regularisation of services of DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers on the next date of completion of 10 years of service.
The undersigned is directed to inform that the Government has taken a policy decision to regularize services of full-time DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers from the next date of completion of 10 years of service and fulfil the fo
