Completion of ten years of service gives a right to regularization, which cannot be negated by subsequent policy changes unless misconduct is proven.

JUDGMENT

1. Having noticed the common question that wades through both the writ petitions being WP(C)No.536 of 2021 [Subhash Roy v. State of Tripura & 3 Ors.] and WP(C)537 of 2021 [Jagabandhu Debnath v. State of Tripura & 3 Ors.] those are combined for disposal by a common judgment.

2. The writ petitioners have urged for Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize their service for their completion of ten years of service by interfering with the decision of the Finance Department contained in the communication dated 02.08.2021 [Annexure-5 to the writ petitions]. There is hardly any difference in facts. Both the petitioners did join as DRW Orderly in the Legal Remembrancer's establishment on 20.12.2007. Thereafter, they have been uninterruptedly serving the respondents.

3. On 02.08.2021 by filing a representation [Annexure-4 to the writ petitions] the petitioners had urged for their regularization against the vacant posts of Orderly. It is apparent that on 19.02.2017 they had completed ten years of service. While scrutinizing the records, it is noticed that the Law Department, Government of Tripura took steps for their regularization and for that purpose, they had referred the matter for concurrence of the Finance Department, as is evident from the communication dated 02.08.2021 [Annexure-5 to the writ petitions]. But by the impugned order the Finance Department has regretted the concurrence. Even from the Note No.126, the Finance Department's view on the proposal of the Law Department can be gathered [see Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents].

4. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that from the communication dated 02.08.2021 it also surfaces that the Finance Department declined to give concurrence to the proposal sent by the Law Department. From the reply, filed on 11.11.2021, what has emanated is that the Finance Department requested the Law Department to send the file only after the Government takes any policy decision for regularization of service of DRW etc., on completion of ten years of their service being engaged after 31.03.2003 in view of the memorandum dated 17.05.2018. It further appears that the said proposal was reasserted by the Law Department on 10.06.2019, but the Finance Department again regretted the proposal. Such decision will be available in their note dated 17.07.2019 [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by them].

5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has quite emphatically stated that the background fact of the decision is that the Finance Department, by the order dated 31.07.2018, the earlier policy on regularization of service of the DRW/Casual/Contingent/ PTW etc. on completion of ten years of service has been recalled. The Government has claimed to have found some shortcomings in those instructions including the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition]. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, the said memorandum dated 31.07.2018 cannot take away the right to be considered as accrued under the memorandum dated 21.01.2009. Hence, the decision of the Finance Department is unsustainable.

6. Ms. S. Nag, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that at present, there is no policy of the Government to regularize the DRWs or casual/contingent workers. Earlier policies of regularization of service of DRWs etc. have been recalled and repealed with immediate effect. Hence, the petitioners do not have any right to ask for regularization for completion of ten years of service. Ms. Nag, learned counsel has however not contested the fact that the petitioners had joined on 20.1