2021 Supreme(Tri) 191
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Uttam Biswas - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 170 of 2020
Decided On : 23-07-2021
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Service Regularization
Headnote
(B) Employment Law - Regularization of service - Irregular engagement does not nullify eligibility where established policy has been enacted to remedy past employment practices - Court holds that the refusal to regularize based on irregular engagement is inconsistent with legislative intent. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner engaged as Daily Rated Worker since 21.07.2003, sought regularization after fulfilling 10 years of service as per government policy, yet faced rejection due to irregular engagement. The petition led to a review by a committee confirming eligibility for regularization under new government directives.
Findings of Court:
Court found the State's refusal to regularize the petitioner based on irregular engagement inconsistent with the intended purpose of the relevant government policies, setting aside previous communications rejecting his regularization and directing the State to comply with the established policy.
Issues: The key issue was whether the irregular engagement of the petitioner precluded his eligibility for regularization after ten years of service as per the amended government policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that where public policy seeks to provide relief to those in irregular employment, the rationale of denying regularization solely on the basis of irregular engagement is flawed and inconsistent with the legislative intent.
Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to regularize the petitioner from 22.07.2013.
Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K. Nath, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A, Mr. N. Majumder, Advocate, for the Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility for regularization of service as group-d employee. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. irregular engagement should not negate regularization policy. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court orders regularization and financial benefits for the petitioner. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondent and Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for respondents-Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.
2. This is a case for regularization of the service of the petitioner in the post of Group-D. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as ‘Meter Reader’ under the State Electricity Department on recommendation of the Block Development Officer, Sadar, North Block, Mohanpur vide order dated 14th July, 2003. The petitioner joined his service on 21st July, 2003. The plea of the petitioner is that, in terms of the memorandum dated 21.01.2009, issued by the Government of Tripura, Department of Finance, the petitioner became eligible for regularization against the post of Group-D, since, he completed 10 years of service as Daily Rated Worker. The Deputy General Manager, Mohanpur Electrical Division submitted a list of Daily Rated Workers/Part Time Workers under the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited addressed to the Addl. General Manager, Electrical Circle No. IV, Agartala, Tripura, West along with their salary statements. In the said list, the name of the petitioner appeared and his status/designation was shown as Daily Rated Worker performing duty for eight hours. The said list also mentioned the date of his engagement as on 21.07.2003 and his wage was fixed at Rs.4,434.00/-. In the said, list at column No.13, it shows that the service of the petitioner as Daily Rated Worker had financial concurrence under reference No.10(22)/FIN/G/DWR.
3. The petitioner submitted representation. The said representation was regretted by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura. As per the direction of this Court, a committee was constituted by the Government to examine and verify the records of such Daily Rated Workers and it was directed that on such consideration, the respondents would consider the regularization of eligible DRW/Casual/Contingent workers. The committee submitted its report and on consideration of the report, the State-respondents found that the petitioner was not eligible for regularization. The ground of such rejection as averred in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents-TSECL and the State-respondent is that the petitioner was irregularly engaged by the Block Development Officer. The Director, Finance, TSECL, Agartala informed the petitioner vide letter dated 05.08.2019 stating that “Finance Department regrets the proposal of TSECL”.
4. There is no dispute that the petitioner was engaged irregularly. The highest executive body i.e. the Council of Ministers of the State had taken a policy decision for making payment of wages to those irregularly engaged workers who were engaged as DRW/Part Time/Contingent/Casual/Fixed workers etc. In the said list, the name of the petitioner also appeared. The Council of Ministers also had taken a policy decision vide memorandum dated 01.09.2008 for regularization of the services of the DRW/Casual/Contingent workers on completion of 10 years of service as on 31.03.2008. Thereafter, the said policy was modified vide memorandum dated 21.01.2009, wherein, the policymakers on their own wisdom had withdrawn the cutoff date i.e. 31.03.2008 for the purpose of regularization of services of DRW etc. Under the modified memorandum dated 21.01.2009, the Government has decided and directed all its instrumentalities to regularize the service of DRW/Casual/Contingent workers from the next date of their completion of 10 years of service. As I said earlier, in view of the list published by Tripura State Electricity Corporati