SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Tri) 102

ARINDAM LODH
Biswajit Sarkar, (40) – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. T.K. Chowdhury, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. N. Majumder, Mr. A. Dey, Advocates, for the Respondent

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 01.05.2000 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 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 employees. The petitioner had received an offer of appointment dated 27.12.2010, issued by the Deputy General Manager(Corporate), TSECL. On 02.04.2011, an offer of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner regularising his service with prospective effect i.e. from the date of jo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top