Tripura High Court
Sri Amalendu Chakma vs The State Of Tripura & Others on 12 February, 2020
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.910/2019
Sri Amalendu Chakma, S/O. Sri Suresh Kumar Chakma, Village-
Gour Chandra Para, P.O.-Dasda, P.S.-Kanchanpur, District-North
Tripura, PIN-799271.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura & others
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI Order 12/02/2020 Petitioner seeks the benefit of regularization as per the Government scheme framed under memorandum dated 01.09.2008. Broadly stated, this scheme envisages granting of regularization to those DRWs, casual or contingent workers who have completed 10(ten) years as on 31.03.2008. They would be regularized w.e.f. 01.07.2008. The petitioner claims that he was engaged as a DRW right from the inception in the year 1998 as on the due date, therefore, he had completed well over 10(ten) years of such service despite which the respondents have not granted him regular status.
2. The case put forth by the respondents in the affidavit was that though the office under which the petitioner was working had showed him as a DRW, in reality he was only a part-time worker and no benefit of regularization can be granted to such part-time workers.
Page 2 of 3
3. Since the division where the petitioner was working has consistently shown him as a DRW but the Government is contesting this claim, under an order dated 10.01.2020 I had desired to verify the nature of payments made to the petitioner by the concerned Executive Engineer at the relevant time. The wage bills for payment of wages of the petitioner were, therefore, called for.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record several documents of the department showing the payments made to the petitioner from time to time, earliest of which is of December, 2003 and these documents go on up to the year 2012.
5. Learned Government Advocate has also brought similar documents for my perusal which match with the documents produced by the petitioner. Perusal of these documents would show that the petitioner was paid wages as a DRW and not as a part- time worker. Admittedly, there is a substantial difference in wages of a part-time worker as compared to a DRW. This would thus establish that the record of the concerned office where the petitioner was working is accurate. The petitioner had been discharging his duties as a DRW and was, therefore, entitled to the benefits flowing from the said memorandum dated 01.09.2008. However, there is a long delay in filing this petition and asserting such rights. Being a continuous cause petition may not be dismissed for such delay nevertheless final relief shall have to be moulded.
Page 3 of 3
6. In the result, the respondents shall grant the benefit to the petitioner of regularization as per the said memorandum dated 01.09.2008 from due date. However, the benefit flowing from such regularization shall be notional till the date of filing of the petition. Actual difference in wages shall be paid from such date. These directions will be carried out within a period of 3(three) months from today.
7. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ Pulak