JUDGMENT

Since common question of facts and law are involved, both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. Heard Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Sharma and Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.

3. The petitioners herein, have prayed for their regularization upon completion of 10 years of service as casual workers under the respondents.

4. Facts in brief are that the State of Tripura has introduced a scheme for regularization of the service of Daily Rated Workers (DRW), Casual, Contingent, etc. workers who had completed 10 years of continuous service under the State-respondents or its instrumentalities. In WP(C) No.210 of 2021, the petitioner No.1 was engaged on 01.01.2005 and the petitioner No.2 was engaged on 25.05.2006 as casual workers. In WP(C) No. 211 of 2021 the petitioner No.1 was engaged on 09.10.2003, petitioner No.2 was engaged on 13.10.2003 and the petitioner No.3 was engaged on 01.01.2004 as casual workers under the Tripura Institute of Technology, one of the educational institutions under the Directorate of Higher Education, Govt. of Tripura. The petitioners have completed 10 years of service without any interruption. Similarly situated casual workers of the same institution filed writ petitions upon completion of their 10 years of services and the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court after allowing their petitions had issued directions upon the State-respondents to regularize the services of those similarly situated persons.

5. The petitioners have brought on records two writ petitions bearing WP(C) No.201/2020 [titled as Sri Biplab Bhowmik and Anr. v. The State of Tripura & Ors.], WP(C) No. 229/2015 [titled as Sri Sajal Kar & Ors. v. The State of Tripura & Ors.] and one writ appeal bearing WA No.115/2016 [titled as The State of Tripura & Ors v. Sri Sajal Kar & Ors.]. The writ appeal as stated, preferred by the State, being allowed by the order of learned Single Judge in WP(C) 229/2015, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in which I was one of the members.

6. I have perused the records and also considered the submission of Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

7. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that the petitioners were engaged under a scheme of MHRD, Govt. of India.

8. This issue has already been settled by a single Bench of this Court (Akil Kureshi, CJ) in WP(C) 201/2020 (supra), in the manner as follows:-

“…The main stand taken by the respondents in a detailed affidavit dated 11.09.2020 is that the petitioners were engaged under a centrally funded scheme therefore they are not entitled to be regularized. With respect to the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No.229 of 2015, in case of Sri Sajal Kar and others vs. The State of Tripura and others, the respondents contend that those petitioners, who were engaged prior to 31.03.2003 whereas both the petitioners in the present case have been engaged after the said date. The relevance of the said cutoff date of 31.03.2003 is sought to be projected on the basis of the Memorandum dated 21.01.2009 issued by the Government of Tripura in which after laying down the terms for regularization of casual workers and DRWs, it has been further provided as under:

“3. There shall be a complete ban on engagement of DRW/Casual/Contingent etc. workers after 31.3.2003 without concurrence from Finance Department. Responsibility shall be fixed on the official found responsible for any irregular engagement henceforth. Such irregular engagement shal