Tripura High Court
Sri Tinku Nath And Others vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 14 February, 2020
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Page 1 of 2
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P(c) No. 1061/2019
Sri Tinku Nath and others.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and others.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradyot Maishan, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M Debbarma, Addl. Govt. Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
ORDER
14/02/2020 Petitioners seek the benefit of the scheme for regularization of casual workers formulated by the State Government on the ground that they have put in requisite number of qualifying service. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are working as casual labourers in the PWD Department since the year 2000. The Government policy envisages regularization of such casual employment upon completion of 10 years. The cases of the petitioners are not considered.
The stand taken by the department however, is, that the petitioners were never engaged by the PWD Department on casual basis or otherwise. They are the workers of the contractor or agencies who are assigned the task of loading and unloading of the godowns of the PWD department. These workers are merely issued Identity Cards so that they can enter the premises and do not have to go through the hassles of security. Copies of such Identity Cards are also produced along with the affidavit. It is pointed out that the Identity Cards are issued with limited validity period. The case of the respondents therefore, is that the petitioners are not covered by the regularization scheme of the Government. Page 2 of 2
Previously, after some hearing counsel for the petitioners was given time to file rejoinder and produce some documents on the basis of which the petitioners' status of having work as casual labourers can be ascertained. He stated that the petitioners do not possess any such documents.
I, therefore, have no choice but to proceed on the basis of materials already on record. Such materials do not suggest any direct link between the petitioners and the Government department. Petitioners had not produced any evidence to show that they are casual workers engaged by the department. In fact not just the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply but the Identity Cards issued would prima facie show that the stand of the Government is correct. In any case, such disputed question, in absence of any further evidence cannot be determined in a writ petition.
Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI),CJ.
Dipankar