Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 98
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Sri Jiban Krishna Debnath S/o Late Mohanta Debnath – Appellant
Vs
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. – Respondents
WP(C) 398 of 2014
Decided on : 16-01-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. DC Nath, Advocate, Mr. S.Chakraborty, Addl. GA.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to be regularized as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) or contingent worker in accordance with the State Government's decision, emphasizing the government's conscious decision to recognize and regularize such irregularly appointed persons.
Headnote:
DRW - Employment Dispute - [Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 79], [Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 80], [Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 81] - The court discussed the petitioner's engagement as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) and the State Government's decision to regularize the services of such workers who have completed 10 years of service. The court highlighted the documents showing the petitioner's status as a DRW or contingent worker and emphasized the government's conscious decision to recognize and regularize such irregularly appointed persons. The court set aside an arbitrary order and directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as a DRW/contingent worker and regularize his service within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was engaged as a fixed pay worker and later as a Helper worker, and claimed to have been subsequently engaged as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW). The petitioner challenged being treated as a part-time worker and singled out from the group of similarly situated persons for regularization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was either working as a DRW or as a contingent worker based on various documents, and emphasized the government's conscious decision to regularize the services of such irregularly appointed persons. An arbitrary order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to treat the petitioner as a DRW/contingent worker and regularize his service within three months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to be regularized as a DRW/contingent worker in accordance with the State Government's decision, despite being treated as a part-time worker by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, based on the documents and communications, was entitled to be regularized as a DRW/contingent worker under the scheme declared by the State Government, emphasizing the government's conscious decision to recognize and regularize such irregularly appointed persons.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to treat the petitioner as a DRW/contingent worker and afford him the benefit of the State Government's decision to regularize him in service within three months. No order as to costs was made.
Heard learned counsel, Mr. P Roy Barman for the petitioner, learned counsel, Mr. DC Nath for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and learned Addl. GA, Mr. S Chakraborty for the respondent Nos. 6 & 7.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that he was engaged on 01.09.1985 by Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical), Jirania Electrical Sub-Division on fixed pay basis and to that effect a letter was issued by the said SDO (Electrical) on 27.03.1989. He was paid a fixed amount of Rs.230/per month by the SDO (Electrical) by order dated 20.11.1989. Subsequently, by another letter dated 09.06.1992 he was engaged as a Helper worker. It is the case of the petitioner that he was thereafter engaged as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) and his wages was also paid as DRW. In support of his contention he has relied on various documents which show that he was treated/considered as a Daily Rated Worker/Contingent worker in the office of the SDO (Electrical), Jirania which was subsequently redesignated as Sr. Manager (Elect.), Jirania under the respondent No.1.
3. He made representation for regularizing of his service as per the declaration of the State Government but he was treated as parttime worker by impugned letter dated 03.02.2014 (Annexure P/11 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy General Manager, Jirania Electrical Division and by filing this writ petition he has challenged it alleging that he has been singled out from the group of similarly situated persons and deprived of the benefit of regularization in consonance of the decisions taken by the State government in respect of the DRW/contingent workers.
4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 6 & 7 by filing separate counter affidavit contended that the petitioner was engaged as a parttime worker and was never engaged as a DRW and/or a contingent worker and, therefore, does not come within the purview of the scheme formulated by the State government for regularization of DRWs/contingent workers. In support of their contention, the respondents also relied on the same documents annexed with the respective counter affidavit.
5. It is an admitted position that State Government had taken a decision to regularize the services of DRWs/contingent workers, etc., who have completed 10 years of service in the government departments or PSUs, etc. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged by SDO (Electrical) Jirania on 01.09.1985 at a fixed monthly wage of Rs.230/. His date of birth is 09.01.1959 and from 01.09.1985 he has been working continuously under the Electric Department of the Government of Tripura and, thereafter, under the respondent No.1 without any break. It is the case of the petitioner that he was treated as a DRW/contingent worker by the Department.
6. AnnexureP/2 to the writ petition, an office order dated 03.10.2008 issued by the Senior Manager, (Electrical) Jirania Electrical Sub-Division shows that the petitioner was directed to work during Durga Puja festival of that year and his status was shown as DRW.
AnnexureP/3 is a letter dated 06.08.2007 written by the said Senior Manager addressed to the Deputy General Manager specifically mentioning the petitioner as a contingent worker working under the Jirania (Electrical) Sub-Division.
AnnexureP/4 is a letter dated 28.07.2007 written by the DGM (Corporate) of TSECL addressed to the Deputy General Manager, Electrical Division No.III, Agartala wherein the petitioner was shown as contingent worker.
Similarly, in AnnexureP/5, a wage bill dated 22.02.2013 the petitioner was shown as DRW.
AnnexureP/6, a list prepared by the department shows the name of the petitioner at Sl. No. 70 as a contingent worker.
AnnexureP/7 is a list of DRWs/contingent workers prepared by the Power Department which shows the name of the petitioner at Sl. No. 9 with the category as DRW.
AnnexureP/13, a letter dated 18.08.2008 written by DGM, Jirania to the DGM, Corporate office of TSECL shows that it was a report submitted on the quer
