Policy for regularization must honor prior engagements if criteria are met, despite subsequent changes in policy restricting claims.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - This writ appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 61 of 2021 directing the State respondents to regularize the writ petitioner (respondent herein) in service with retrospective effect from 07.10.2009.

2. The factual context of the case is as under:-

The writ petitioner was engaged as a Group-D employee along with 02(two) others on contract basis for the residential Office of the Minister, Panchayats at a consolidated pay of Rs. 1500/- plus additional financial benefits by an order dated 07.10.1999 issued from the General Administration (SA) Department, Civil Secretariat, Government of Tripura (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition). The said engagement letter was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. Subsequently, by an order dated 10.11.2004 (Annexure-2), the services of the Daily Rated Workers (DRW), including the writ petitioner who were engaged for the residential Office of the Minister were placed under the disposal of the Director/Head of the Department.

3. Another order was issued on 09.12.2004 from the Directorate of Panchayat, Government of Tripura (Annexure-3) whereunder the writ petitioner was shown to have been engaged in the Panchayat Department on contract basis at a monthly consolidated pay of Rs. 1,900/-. Thereafter, by an order dated 20.12.2004 the writ petitioner was transferred and posted at kadamtala RD Block with immediate effect and pursuant to the said transfer order he was released from the office of the Directorate of Panchayat, Agartala in order to enable him to join his new place of posting in the office of the BDO, Kadamtala RD Block.

4. Having completed 10 years of qualifying service without any break from the date of his engagement as a Daily Rated Worker w.e.f, 07.10.1999, the writ petitioner submitted a representation to the Block Development Officer of Kadamtala RD Block seeking regularization of service. In turn, the Block Development Officer, Kadamtala RD Block (respondent no. 4 in the Writ Petition) under his letter dated 3.6.2009 (Annexure-6), forwarded the prayer of the writ petitioner to the Director of Panchayats (respondent no. 2). Since there was no response from the respondents regarding regularization of his service, the writ petitioner submitted another representation to the respondents claiming regularization. In the said representation he referred to various memorandums issued by the State Government from time to time regarding regularization of Daily Rated Workers/Casual Workers. He also referred to the instances of the similarly situated Daily Rated Workers who were regularized in service by the State respondents. Even thereafter, his case was not considered by the respondents for regularization in service. Aggrieved writ petitioner therefore approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 61 of 2021 claiming the following reliefs:-

'(i) Issue rule, calling upon the respondents and each of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus or/and in the nature thereof, shall not be issued directing the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service since he has completed his (Ten) years of service without any break w.e.f. the date of his initial joining as Group-D employee i.e, from 01.04.1999.

(ii) Issue a rule calling upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof shall not be issued, mandating/directing the respondents to act upon and regularize the service of the petitioner in terms of the Memorandum dated 21.01.2009 and 04.09.2012 issued by t