The court established that the arbitrary denial of regularization of services for Daily Rated Workers after ten years of service violates principles of equality and non-discrimination in employment.

JUDGMENT :

S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent nos.2 to 6.

2. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners were engaged as DRWs (Group-D) vide memorandum dated 15.02.2010 (Annexure-1) issued by Tripura Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society [in short, TTWREIS] and the petitioners along with 08(eight) other persons (in total 12 nos.) were also offered appointments to the post of Group-D on DRW (Daily Rated Workers) basis and accordingly, offer of appointments were also issued vide memorandum dated 16.03.2010 (Annexure-2,3,4 & 5). Thereafter, they joined as DRW either on 17.03.2010 and 18.03.2010 as evident from memorandum dated 09.03.2010 issued by Member Secretary, TTWREIS (Annexure-6).

3. Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel also submits that meanwhile the Government of Tripura in view of the direction issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, issued some notifications regarding regularisation of such DRWs/Casual Workers/Contingent Workers upon completion of 10(ten) years of their services, but services of none of the above said twelve DRWs were regularised.

4. Thereafter, two persons namely Sri Upendra Tripura and Sri Senchandra Tripura filed WP(C) No.860 of 2021 before this Court praying for regularization of their services as Group-D employee and a coordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.03.2022 passed the following order :

“23. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having taken note of the proposal sent by the Tripura Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society vide Note No.19 [as reproduced], this court is of the view that the respondents shall consider the regularization of the petitioners in the post of Cook cum Mashalchi/Watchman in the scale of pay of Rs.4,840-13,000/- GP-1,400/- under Tripura State Pay Matrix, PB-1 Cell-1, Level-1, Entry pay-Rs.16,000/-, not in terms of the policy of the government which have been repealed but for their completing of their ten years of service as the Daily Rated Worker. From the Note No.19, it is evident that the competent authority in the Society has taken the responsibility of finance, as may be required for such regularization, having clearly declared as under :

“The requirement of fund for the said purpose will be borne from the Grant to EMR School and Recurring Grant to Society as per the details herein below :

Therefore, the posts for such regularisation be created by the respondents.

24. In this juncture, this court may refer to a decision of the apex court in Nihal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 65 where it has been held :

“32. Coming to the other aspect of the matter pointed out by the High Court - that in the absence of sanctioned posts the State cannot be compelled to absorb the persons like the appellants into the services of the State, we can only say that posts are to be created by the State depending upon the need to employ people having regard to various functions the State undertakes to discharge.

“Every sovereign Government has within its own jurisdiction right and power to create whatever public offices it may regard as necessary to its proper functioning and its own internal administration.”42 American Jurisprudence 902, para 31

33. It is no doubt that the assessment of the need to employ a certain number of people for discharging a