Back
ARINDAM LODH
Anjali Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility for regularization of contingent workers. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. judgment reference supporting the petitioner's claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. entitlement to similar treatment as per precedent. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. orders issued for compliance and direction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-TSECL as well as Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. and Mr. H. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner was engaged as a contingent worker on 03.02.1997 under the respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that the State-Government had formulated a scheme vide memorandum dated 9th June 2009 for regularization of all casual/contingent/DRWs workers working under the State-Government. It is the admitted position that Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) has adopted the said scheme for regularization of all contingent/casual/DRWs workers engaged and working under it.
3. One of the provisions of the scheme, is that, in the case of contingent workers, who had completed 10(ten) years of service as on 31.03.2008, shall be eligible for regularisation as Group-D
The court ruled on the necessity of equitable treatment in employment regularization, confirming eligibility under the established scheme and the obligation to address disparities in treatment among ....
The court established that employees in similar situations must be treated equally regarding regularization, enforcing compliance with prior judgments within specified timeliness.
The court upheld a contingent worker's right to regularization as per the government scheme, ensuring equal treatment and addressing grievances over unequal benefits.
The court emphasized the need for equal treatment of contingent workers under a regularization scheme and directed timely compliance for the petitioner's rightful promotion.
Petitioner's eligibility for regularization is affirmed based on service duration and prior government schemes, reinforcing principles of equity and fair treatment in employment.
Irregular employment does not preclude regularization where a clear policy for the regularization of such workers exists, reaffirming legislative intent to remedy historical employment practices.
The absence of a policy for the regularization of contingent workers should not deprive long-serving employees of the benefits of regularization, as exploiting their long-term service would be arbitr....
Employment and Service matter - Regularization of Service - Benefits of - Ability of Municipal Council and Panchayats to pay regular scales to temporary staff irrespective of existence of vacancies, ....
Regularization of casual workers after 10 years of service is mandated under government schemes, emphasizing equality and non-discrimination irrespective of engagement dates.
Employees are entitled to regularization under government policy when they meet the criteria for continuous service despite mechanical breaks.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
