Employees are entitled to regularization under government policy when they meet the criteria for continuous service despite mechanical breaks.

JUDGMENT

A. Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the appellant- State of Tripura. Also heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- petitioner and Mr. B. Mujumder, learned Asst. S.G. on behalf of respondent- Union of India.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in connection with case No. WP(C) 219/2018 [Smti. Laxmi Rani Sarkar @ Laxmi Sarkar v. State of Tripura and others].

3. The facts as projected by learned Single Judge may be reproduced hereinbelow:

'.......2. It appears from the records that the petitioner had retired from service on 31.05.2018, her date of superannuation. As the Finance Department, Government of Tripura, (respondent No. 3) has regretted the regularization of the petitioner, she has challenged the said decision to pave the way for issuance of mandamus in terms of the above.

3. The petitioner was engaged as the daily rated worker (DRW) initially by the memorandum No.F.10(10-1)/80 dated 28.09.1981. The petitioner had reported to her duties to the Project Implementing Committee, Khowai Border Area Project and continued to work there in the said capacity till 31.10.1988. By the memorandum No. F.1.(24)/87 dated 01.11.1988 issued by the respondent No.4, the petitioner was absorbed as the Contingent Peon on the consolidated pay of Rs.600/- per month for the period from 09.11.1988 to 02.05.1989. By another memorandum under No. F.1(24)/87 dated 01.02.1989 issued by the respondent No.5, the petitioner was again allowed to work as DRW with effect from 06.02.1989.

4. The petitioner had been working as DRW/Contingent Peon (Group-D) under the respondent No.4, as stated. Her service got extended for a period spanning about 36 years. Her service, according to the petitioner was continuous and without any break. Even where there is some mechanical break in the service, as per the stipulation of the engagement, on those breaks, the petitioner was engaged by separate orders as DRW to serve the respondent No.4.

5. According to the petitioner, for engagement of the petitioner prior concurrence from the Finance Department, Government of Tripura and approval from the Central Social Welfare Board were taken. But the respondents did not consider the petitioner for regularization, notwithstanding her long service. But some persons were engaged on regular basis under the same capacity from the similar status but the petitioner's case for regularization was harshly ignored.

6. By the memorandum No. F.34(3)-FIN(G)/2012 dated 04.09.2012 (Annexure-D to the writ petition), Government of Tripura has adopted the policy of regularization of DRW/Contingent employee who were engaged prior to 31.03.2003 on full time basis and had completed 10 years of service. The said category of DRWs/Contingent workers were considered for regularization, subject to fulfillment of other conditions as stipulated.

7. The petitioner has asserted that she was eligible for regularization in terms of the memorandum dated 04.09.2012. The petitioner's name, along with some others, with all particulars, was sent to the respondent No.2 by the forwarding letter dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) for regularization. The petitioner has further asserted that in the said process many DRWs and contingent employees were regularized but her case was not considered. The petitioner has given some examples how such regularization had taken place.

8. By the memorandum dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-H to the writ petition), one Swaraj Ghosh, not party in this proceeding, was regu