Tripura High Court
Sri Uttam Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 20 July, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.225 OF 2016
WP(C) NO.226 OF 2016
WP(C) NO.227 OF 2016
WP(C) NO.228 OF 2016
WP(C) NO.229 OF 2016
WP(C) NO.230 OF 2016
WP(C) NO.231 OF 2016
WP(C) NO.232 OF 2016
WP(C) NO.233 OF 2016
WP(C) NO.241 OF 2016
WP(C) NO.225 OF 2016
Sri Uttam Debnath,
son of Atul Debnath,
resident of Vill & P.O. Noagaon,
Krishnanagar, P.S. New Capital Complex,
District : West Tripura, PIN : 799006
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Department of Finance,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN- 799006
2. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
To be represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
3. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
4. The Dy. General Manager,
Transmission Division, T.S.E.C.L., 79 Tilla, Agartala.
............ Respondents
WP(C) NO.226 OF 2016
Sri Ratan Gour,
son of late Saral Gour,
resident of Kunjaban Colony,
P.O. Ujan Abhoynagar,
District : West Tripura, PIN : 799005.
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Department of Finance,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN- 799006
2. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
3. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
4. The Dy. General Manager,
Transmission Division, T.S.E.C.L., 79 Tilla, Agartala.
............ Respondents
WP(C) NO.227 OF 2016
Sri Manik Debnath,
son of late Pranballabh Debnath,
resident of Barjala, Vill. Hatipara, Shalbagan,
P.O. Shalbagan, P.S. Airport.
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Department of Finance,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN- 799006
2. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
3. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
4. The Dy. General Manager,
Transmission Division, T.S.E.C.L., 79 Tilla, Agartala.
............ Respondents
Page 2 of 32
WP(C) NO.228 OF 2016
Sri Bhabajit Das,
son of late Harimohan Sukla Das,
resident of Kumaritilla, Indranagar,
P.O. Abhoynagar, District : West Tripura, PIN : 799005.
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Department of Finance,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN- 799006
2. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
3. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
4. The Dy. General Manager,
Transmission Division, T.S.E.C.L., 79 Tilla, Agartala.
............ Respondents
WP(C) NO.229 OF 2016
Sri Nitai Deb,
son of late Niranjan Deb,
resident of Malaynagar, P.O. Renters Colony,
P.S. Sreenagar, District : West Tripura, PIN : 799004
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Department of Finance,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN : 799006
2. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
Page 3 of 32
3. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
4. The Dy. General Manager,
Transmission Division, T.S.E.C.L., 79 Tilla, Agartala.
............ Respondents
WP(C) NO.230 OF 2016
Sri Shambhu Charan Debnath,
son of Manik Debnath,
Resident of Village : Bhalukiya Lunga,
P.O. Kunjaban, District : West Tripura, PIN : 799006
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Department of Finance,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN : 799006
2. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
3. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
4. The Dy. General Manager,
Transmission Division, T.S.E.C.L., 79 Tilla, Agartala.
............ Respondents
WP(C) NO.231 OF 2016
Sri Rathindranath Ghosh,
son of late Pareshnath Ghosh,
Resident of West Taranagar,
P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Sidhai,
District : West Tripura, PIN : 799211
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
Page 4 of 32
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Department of Finance,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN : 799006
2. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
3. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
4. The Dy. General Manager,
Transmission Division, T.S.E.C.L., 79 Tilla, Agartala.
............ Respondents
WP(C) NO.232 OF 2016
Sri Uttam Biswas,
son of late Promod Chandra Biswas,
resident of Vill. Tarapur, P.O. Mohanpur,
P.S. Sidhai, District : West Tripura, PIN : 799211
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Department of Finance,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN : 799006
5. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
6. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
7. The Dy. General Manager,
Transmission Division, T.S.E.C.L., 79 Tilla, Agartala.
............ Respondents
Page 5 of 32
WP(C) NO.233 OF 2016
Sri Priya Ranjan Debbarma,
son of late Birendra Debbarma,
resident of Vill. Duigharia,
P.O. Uttar Dashgharia, P.S. Sidhai,
District : West Tripura, PIN : 799212
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Department of Finance,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN : 799006
2. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
3. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
4. The Dy. General Manager,
Transmission Division, T.S.E.C.L., 79 Tilla, Agartala.
............ Respondents
WP(C) NO.241 OF 2016
Sri Josoda Saha,
son of late Mahananda Saha,
Resident of Rabindranagar, Dukli
P.S. East Agartala, District : West Tripura, PIN : 799004
............ Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Department of Finance,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN : 799006
2. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
Page 6 of 32
3. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
Agartala, District : West Tripura.
4. The Dy. General Manager,
Transmission Division, T.S.E.C.L., 79 Tilla, Agartala.
............ Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
For the petitioners : Mr. K. Nath, Advocate
Mr. P. Maishan, Advocate
For the respondents : Ms. A.S. Lodh, Addl. G.A.
Mr. D.C. Nath, Advocate
Date of hearing &
judgment & order : 20.07.2017
Whether fit for reporting : NO
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
All these writ petitions, being WP(C) No.225 of 2016 [Sri Uttam Debnath Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) No.226 of 2016 [Sri Ratan Gour Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) No.227 of 2016 [Sri Manik Debnath Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) No.228 of 2016 [Sri Bhabajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) No.229 of 2016 [Sri Nitai Deb Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) No.230 of 2016 [Sri Shambhu Charan Debnath Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) No.231 of 2016 [Sri Rathindranath Ghosh Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) No.232 of 2016 [Sri Uttam Biswas Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.], WP(C) No.233 of 2016 [Sri Priya Ranjan Debbarma Vs. The State of Page 7 of 32 Tripura and Ors.] and WP(C) No.241 of 2016 [Sri Josoda Saha Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors.] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as, to a larger extent, the facts as averred in the writ petitions are identical and further, the reliefs as prayed are same, but at the same time some small variations of fact are located. The questions of law as surfaced are marked by close resemblance.
2. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for their regularization to the post of Group-D from the date when they had completed 10(ten) years of service from the date of their initial engagement. Those who were not engaged as the Daily Rated Workers (DRWs) but shown as the Part Time Workers (PTWs), but had discharged the duties for 8(eight) hours a day alike the DRWs have claimed to have similar status of DRWs. The petitioners have urged the relief on the basis of the policy, persuaded by the Corporation that after 10(ten) years of service as the DRW, a DRW or a contingent employee shall be made regular.
Before we proceed further, it would be appropriate to lay the bare minimal fact involved in each of the writ petition.
WP(C) NO. 225 OF 2016 [SRI UTTAM DEBNATH VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.]
3. The petitioner joined as the Daily Rated Worker (DRW) under the Department of Power on 17.12.1997 and subsequently on formation of Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, 'TSECL' in short, his service was transferred by the Memorandum dated Page 8 of 32 01.09.2008. Though the petitioner is a Part Time Worker (PTW), as is evident from the records so produced, but in the data-base (Human Resource Inventory) published by the Office Memorandum No. F. HRD/ 2(1)/ HRIS/ TSECL/ Corp. Office/ 25121-45 dated 16.10.2006, the petitioner has been shown as the Daily Rated Worker (DRW). That has been made the basis for claiming the status of DRW by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has been serving uninterruptedly without any break in the service from 17.12.1997. Those who are juniors to the petitioner as DRWs/Contingent workers had already been regularized, but till date the petitioner has not been regularized in the Group-D post even after completion of 10(ten) years of service with effect from his initial engagement as the DRW i.e. 17.12.1997. For not regularizing the petitioner, no reason has been furnished. The petitioner has claimed to have the regular pay and allowances from the day when he had completed ten years of service from 17.12.1997.
4. Though the petitioner filed representations, but none of his representations was attended to. In the meanwhile, the Government has taken a policy decision to regularize those DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers on their completion of 10(ten) years of service with approval of the Finance Department. For that reason the petitioner has approached this court.
5. In reply, the respondents No.2 to 4, the principal respondents have stated that the petitioner was engaged as the Part Time Worker, 'PTW' in short, by the Office Order dated 17.12.1997 (Annexure-R/1 to the reply) with the approval of the Finance Page 9 of 32 Department, Government of Tripura by their order dated 17.01.1997. The respondents have admitted that the Government of Tripura has taken a policy decision to regularize the service of the DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers in terms of the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), but they have emphatically stated that the petitioner's name has not been incorporated in the list appended to the said memorandum. The petitioner's name was not available there for the reason that the petitioner was engaged as a PTW, not as a DRW.
WP(C) NO. 226 OF 2016 [SRI RATAN GOUR VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.]
6. The petitioner was engaged as the Daily Rated Worker (DRW) in the office of the SDO, Electrical Sub-Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala under the Department of Power, Govt. of Tripura on 07.01.1996 and since then the petitioner has been working as the DRW uninterruptedly. Subsequently, the petitioner's service had been transferred to the TSECL. By the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part), dated 01.09.2008 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Finance (Annexure-P/7 to this writ petition), the policy in respect of regularization of the service of the DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers on completion of 10(ten) years of service as on 31.03.2008 was accepted.
7. Since the petitioner had completed ten years of service as on 31.03.2008, he was fully covered by the policy decision as Page 10 of 32 reflected in the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 for getting the regularization in a Group-D post. The petitioner had approached several times for his regularization. He has also submitted a representation on 07.11.2015 to the CMD, TSECL, but nothing positive has yielded. That apart, the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. By the Office Order under No.F.2(1)/EST/SDO/(E)/TSD/Agt.1003-17 dated 18.03.1998 (Annexure-P/2 to this writ petition), the petitioner was engaged as the DRW in the office of the SDO (Electrical) Transmission Sub- Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala. From the statement annexed with the letter under No.F.2(1)/EST/SDO/(E)/TSD/Agt./666 dated 04.02.1999 (Annexure-P/3 to this writ petition), written by the SDO(Electrical) Transmission Sub-Division, Agartala, it would appear that the name of the petitioner appeared in sl.no.8. There his date of appointment has been shown 07.01.1996. He was working as on fixed pay basis for Rs.1800/- per month. Even the Deputy General Manager, Transmission Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala, by his letter under No.F.9(2)/DGM/TD/3,606-08 dated 22.12.2008 (Annexure-P/5 to this writ petition), processed the papers for regularization of the petitioner, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste Community. The petitioner has submitted representations several times, but he did not keep copy. On 23.10.2008, a representation as is evident, was forwarded to the Deputy General Manager, Transmission Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala, by the Senior Manager, Transmission Sub-Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala under No.F.4(6)/SM/TSD/AGT/449 (Annexure-P/6 to this writ petition). From the memorandum under No.F.10(2)- FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure-P/7 to this writ Page 11 of 32 petition), the petitioner came to know that there exists a policy of the Government for regularizing the service of full-time DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers who have completed 10(ten) years of service as on 31.03.2008. As per the said memorandum, the regularization will take effect from 01.07.2008. The petitioner is squarely covered by the memorandum dated 01.09.2008. On 31.10.2008, the petitioner had completed ten years of service as DRW.
8. Despite the representation made to the respondents, no positive result had yielded. Finally, the petitioner submitted a representation on 06.09.2010 to the Chairman, Scrutiny Committee, TSECL, through the proper channel, expressing his grievance that though in the list circulated by the Finance Department, the petitioner's name appeared at sl.no.1102, showing him as DRW, but in the list circulated by the SDO(Electrical), Transmission Sub- Division, 79 Tilla on 09.08,2005, the petitioner's name had been shown at sl.no.9 as CBW and in the list of Contingent Workers/DRWs whose service had been recently regularized, the petitioner's name did not figure. The petitioner came to know from the reliable source that he had been shown as the Part Time Worker (PTW). By another letter under No.F.1(22)/ESTT/SOD/865 dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure-P/10 to this writ petition), the Deputy General Manager, System Operation Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala had requested the Deputy General Manager, Transmission Divn., 79 Tilla, Agartala to send the particulars of the petitioner (DRW) as per the format received from the DGM, Corporate, TSECL. Further, by the letter under No.F. ESTT/1(22)/SOD/473 dated 18.10.2012 (Annexure-P/11 Page 12 of 32 to this writ petition), the Deputy General Manager, System Operation Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala had requested the Deputy General Manager, TSECL, Transmission Divn., 79 Tilla, Agartala to send the report of the petitioner as per the format received from the DGM, Corporate Office, TSECL for up-gradation of the database of Contractual/Contract Basis Workers working in different Departments as well as PSUs and other autonomous organizations.
9. By the memorandum issued under reference No.F.6(151)-TSECL/05/Pt-2/10477-88 dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure- P/12 to this writ petition), the service of eight DRWs/Contingent Workers were offered to be regularized in the post of Helper Grade-II on purely temporary basis in the scale of pay of Rs.4530-13,000 (Pay Band-1, Grade Pay-Rs.1200) plus other admissible allowances as applicable to the employees of the Corporation under certain terms and conditions. Further, by the Appointment Order under No. F.6(151)-TSECL/05/Pt-2/9144-391 dated 02.04.2011 (Annexure- P/14 to this writ petition), issued by the Company Secretary, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., as many as 237 DRWs/Contingent Workers were regularized by appointing them in the post of Helper Grade-II in the scale of pay of Rs.4530-13,000/- (Pay Band-1, Grade Pay-Rs.1200/-) plus other admissible allowances as applicable to the employees of the Corporation under certain terms and conditions. Those who are engaged as the DRW/Contingent Workers after the petitioner, had been regularized, keeping the petitioner's case unattended. By the letter dated 28.10.2010 the Deputy General Manager, System Operation Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala (Annexure- P/15 to this writ petition) has observed that for the period from Page 13 of 32 21.09.2010 to 20.10.2010 the petitioner worked full-time which shows that there is no blemish in the conduct of the petitioner.
The discriminatory treatment as such has prompted the petitioner to file the present writ petition. Secondly, the petitioner has prayed for his regularization in any post under Group-D category and for treating his regular service immediately after completion of ten years of service.
10. By filing the reply, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner has no right to claim regularization as he is the Contract Basis Worker (CBW).
WP(C) NO. 227 OF 2016 [SRI MANIK DEBNATH VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.]
11. The petitioner has claimed that he has joined as the DRW under the Power Department on 24.02.1990 and on formation of the TSECL, his service was transferred to the said Corporation. He has been serving under the respondents uninterruptedly without any break in service. Despite the fact that he is covered by the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 for purpose of regularization, his service has not been regularized as yet. The petitioner approached several times for his regularization, but despite assurance of remedying his grievance no positive action has surfaced. As a result, the petitioner has been persuaded to approach this court by filing the present writ petition.
12. The TSECL is a Government of Tripura enterprise and it has adopted the said memorandum under No.F.10(2)- Page 14 of 32 FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 01.09.2008 issued by the Finance Department , Government of Tripura (Annexure-P/4 to this writ petition). By the said memorandum it has been clearly postulated that the Government has taken a policy decision to regularize the services of full-time DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers who have completed ten years of service on fulfillment of the criteria as laid down in the memorandum dated 01.09.2008. By the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure- P/5 to this writ petition), it has been further specified that by virtue of the said policy decision, the full-time DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers be regularized from the next date of completion of ten years of service subject to fulfilling of the criteria as laid down in the said memorandum dated 21.01.2009.
13. According to the petitioner, his case is confirmed all the conditions as laid down in both the memoranda. He has alleged that by the order under No. F.6(151)-TSECL/05/Pt-2/9144-391 dated 02.04.2011 (Annexure-P/6 to this writ petition), as many as 237 DRWS were regularized in the post of Helper Gr-II. By the order under No.F.6(151)-TSECL/05/Pt-2/9392-532 dated 02.04.2011 (Annexure-P/7 to this writ petition), another batch of 130 DRWs/Contingent Workers had been regularized in the post of MRCBC (Meter Reader cum Bill Clerk) in the pay scale of Rs.5310- 24000 (Pay Band-II, Grade Pay-Rs.1800) plus other admissible allowances, but the petitioner's case was totally ignored arbitrarily. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Prior to that, he had filed one representation dated 06.11.2015 to the Chairman cum Page 15 of 32 Managing Director, TSECL, Agartala, Tripura, but no positive action has come forth.
14. The respondents No.2 to 4 by filing the reply, have stated that the DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers whose name were included in the Finance Department's memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2005 dated 22.02.2007 were only regularized by the Power Department and the TSECL. However, they have stated that, why the petitioner was not considered for regularization by the Power Department, is not known to them. The respondents No.2 to 4 have categorically admitted that the petitioner's name was included in the said memorandum dated 22.02.2007. The said respondents have further asserted as under:
"The then Chairman Cum Managing Director, TSECL himself has done a thorough verification personally with the records/documents and submitted the authenticated and final report. In the authenticated and verified report of the then CMD, TSECL it clearly shows Sri Manik Debnath a PTW."
Thus, the petitioner's name had been deleted from the verified list by the Finance Department.
15. From the officer order dated 05.11.1999 (Annexure-P/1 to this writ petition) it appears that the petitioner has been shown as the PTW, but the petitioner has relied on the database prepared by the Finance Department, which is contrary to his engagement letter. In this regard, the petitioner has not given any explanation in this writ petition, even no rejoinder has been filed against the said statement made in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.2 to 4, except in the prayer, the petitioner has submitted that the respondents be directed for reckoning the service of the petitioner as Page 16 of 32 'PTW' for being eligible to be regularized on completion of ten years of service as DRW. That is really surprising and shows that the petitioner has not attended the facts properly in the writ petition.
WP(C) NO. 228 OF 2016 [SRI BHABAJIT DAS VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.]
16. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that he was engaged as the Part Time Worker (PTW) by the office order dated 09.12.1997 (Annexure-P/2 to this writ petition). The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community. By the order under No.F.6(151)-TSECL/05/Pt-2/9144-391 dated 02.04.2011 (Annexure-P/3 to this writ petition), one Sri Ashit Saha at sl.no.144 has been regularized. According to the petitioner, in the case of Ashit Saha, ten years of service as the PTW was considered as ten years of service as DRW for treating him eligible for regularization of service. The petitioner was initially appointed in the month of December 1997 and as such he has completed ten years of service. By the letter under No.F.1(1)/SLDC/AGT/467 dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure-P/4 to this writ petition), the Senior Manager, TSECL, SLDC, Agartala, had transmitted to the Senior Manager, Transmission Sub-Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala the absentee statement of the PTWs as well as LBD. In that letter the name of one Nirmal Debnath has appeared at sl.no.1 and his status has been shown as PTW. But, said Nirmal Debnath has been regularized alongwith others by the memorandum under No.F.6(151)-TSECL/05/Pt-2/10477-88 dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure- P/5 to this writ petition) issued by the Deputy General Manager (Corporate), TSECL, Agartala. According to the petitioner, he is also covered by the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) Page 17 of 32 dated 01.09.2008 issued by the Finance Department , Government of Tripura (Annexure-P/6 to this writ petition). Thus, on completion of ten years of service as on 31.03.2008 the petitioner ought to have been regularized, but that was not so done. Further, the petitioner is also covered by the memorandum under No.F.10(2)- FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure-P/7 to this writ petition). According to the petitioner, he is entitled to be regularized in a Group-D post on completion of ten years of service as DRW with effect from 09.12.1997. The petitioner had represented his case before the respondents, but without any effect whatsoever. He has made two-fold prayers, viz. to regularize him in a Group-D post with retrospective effect from the day of his completion of ten years of service and alternatively, to regularize him as DRW on completion of ten years of service as PTW.
17. In reply, the respondents No.2 to 4 have stated that since the petitioner is a PTW, he is not covered by the policy decision as contained in the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 as well as the memorandum dated 21.01.2009. Those memoranda contained the policy for regularization of full-time DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers who have completed 10(ten) years of service as on 31.03.2008. The respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner was engaged as the PTW for 4(four) hours per day pursuant to the letter of the Chief Engineer (Electrical), Tripura, Agartala, dated 09.12.1997 (Annexure-P/2 to this writ petition) and hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Page 18 of 32
18. In rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that he has been discharging 8(eight) hours duty in a day and thus, his status needs to be treated as the DRW. The petitioner has strongly denied the assertion of the respondents that he was engaged to work as the PTW for four hours a day only.
WP(C) NO. 229 OF 2016 [SRI NITAI DEB VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.]
19. The petitioner has claimed that by the office order dated 17.12.1997 (Annexure-P/1 to this writ petition), he was engaged as the Part Time Worker (PTW) in the office of the SDO(E) Elect. Sub- Divn., Jogendranagar, under the EE(E), Divn. No.III, Agartala. Since his initial engagement, the petitioner has been continuously serving without any break, but till date he had not been given the status of DRW even though he is entitled to get such status. By the order No.F.1(1)/SLDC/AGT/467 dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure-P/1 to this writ petition), the Senior Manager, TSECL, SLDC, Agartala, has furnished the absentee statement to the Senior Manager, Transmission Sub-Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala, where one Nirmal Debnath was shown as the PTW. By the Memorandum under No.F.6(151)-TSECL/05/Pt-2/10477-88 dated 12.04.2012, issued by the Deputy General Manager (Corporate), TSECL, the service of said Nirmal Debnath has been regularized alongwith others. Though the petitioner is similarly circumstanced, his case was not considered despite the fact that the petitioner has already completed ten years of service.
Page 19 of 32
20. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is squarely covered by the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 as well as the memorandum dated 21.01.2009. Several times, the petitioner had approached his superior authority for regularization of his service as Group-D on completion of ten years of service as DRW. These averments become susceptible in attending the relevant fact in the background that, in para 12 of the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted that he had submitted one representation to the Chairman- cum-Managing Director, TSECL, stating that his service should be regularized by treating the period spent by him as PTW, as the period spent by him as DRW with effect from 23.12.1997 with arrear pay and salary.
21. The reply was obvious. As the petitioner is a Part Time Worker (PTW), he is not covered by the memoranda dated 01.09.2008 and 21.01.2009. Those memoranda only provide the scheme for regularization of Contingent and Casual Workers who had completed ten years of service well within 31.03.2008. Despite that, the petitioner had made the prayer for regularization as a Group-D employee with arrear pay etc. and an alternative prayer to regularize him as DRW from the date when he had completed ten years of service as Part Time Worker.
WP(C) NO. 230 OF 2016 [SRI SHAMBHU CHARAN DEBNATH VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.]
22. The petitioner was engaged as the Contract Basis Worker (CBW), Group-D on 01.04.2002 and, since then he has been serving continuously without any break. The petitioner has also made Page 20 of 32 reference to the case of one Nirmal Debnath, a Group-D employee under the TSECL, who was regularized by the memorandum dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure-P/3 to this writ petition). Despite the fact that in the letter dated 21.10.2005, Nirmal Debnath was shown as the Part Time Worker (PTW), said Nirmal Debnath's case was considered. Even though the petitioner is similarly circumstanced, he has been ignored. According to the petitioner, his ten years service spent on PTW shall be treated as DRW for his regularization immediately on completion of ten years of service in terms of the memoranda dated 01.09.2008 and 21.01.2009.
23. The petitioner is not eligible for consideration in view of the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure-P/4 to this writ petition) as the petitioner could not complete ten years of service on or before 31.03.2008. However, since there is no time frame in the memorandum dated 21.01.2009, his case, according to the petitioner, could have been considered for regularization. The petitioner has asserted that, he would have been regularized as the Group-D employee alongwith said Nirmal Debnath. But that was not done and, as such he has approached this court for directing the respondents to regularize him in a Group-D post with retrospective effect from the date immediately after his completion of ten years of service as DRW or to treat him as DRW on completion of ten years of service.
24. In reply, the respondents No.2 to 4 have stated that the petitioner being a CBW, is not covered under the policy of the Government and as such the TSECL was not in a position to consider Page 21 of 32 his regularization as the CBWs were appointed as per the local need without any concurrence of the Finance Department, Government of Tripura.
25. By filing the rejoinder, the petitioner has further asserted that some Contract Basis Workers were also regularized by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. To buttress his contention, in his rejoinder, he has referred to the order dated 02.04.2011 (Annexure- P/9 to this writ petition), by which, according to the petitioner, CPWs have been regularized in Group-D posts. Even he has referred the names of the CBWs who were regularized, in para 5 of the rejoinder. Thereafter, he has submitted that the said regularizations has been made whimsically, even his case was not considered. As a result, the petitioner has been deprived of security of job and the court shall direct the respondents to extend the security to his job.
WP(C) NO. 231 OF 2016 [SRI RATHINDRANATH GHOSH VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.]
26. By means of this petition, the petitioner has claimed to have been appointed as the Meter Reader on temporary basis on 21.07.2003. According to him, he is also covered by the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 as well as by the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 (Annexures P/3 and P/4 respectively to this writ petition). From the communication dated 14.07.2003 (Annexure-P/1 to this writ petition), the petitioner was engaged to act as a Meter Reader on temporary basis. The said engagement order was issued by the Block Development Officer, Sadar North Block, Mohanpur. The petitioner has also produced the memorandum dated 18.12.2013 Page 22 of 32 (Annexure-P/6 to this writ petition), wherefrom it appears that the petitioner has been holding the status of DRW (8 hours) since 21.07.2003. On the basis of which, the petitioner has claimed his regularization. In this regard, he has submitted a representation on 28.10.2015 to the Chairman cum Managing Director, TSECL. But, by the reply dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition), it has been asserted that the petitioner's representation was forwarded to the Deputy General Manager, TSECL, Electrical Division, Mohanpur for doing the needful by the Senior Manager (Elec.), Mohanpur Elec. Sub-Division.
27. In reply, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has been engaged as per the order of the Executive Officer (Block Development Officer), Sadar North Block, Mohanpur and the TSECL, being the service provider has no liability for regularization of his service. So the claim of the petitioner is not at all justified. The petitioner had not filed any rejoinder.
WP(C) NO. 232 OF 2016 [SRI UTTAM BISWAS VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.]
28. The petitioner had joined as the DRW in the Department of Power on 21.07.2003 and subsequently his service was placed under the control of the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, 'TSECL' in short, by way of transfer. By the Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 the Government of Tripura has taken a policy decision to regularize the service of the DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers who had completed 10(ten) years of service as on 31.03.2008. Even though the petitioner had completed the ten years of service, in Page 23 of 32 terms of the said policy decision as reflected in the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure-P/3 to this writ petition) he has not given any benefit.
29. By the order under No.F.6(151)-TSECL/05/P-2/9392-532 dated 02.04.2011 (Annexure-P/5 to this writ petition) as many as 130 DRW/Contingent Workers were regularized by appointing them in the post of Meter Reader cum Bill Clerk, 'MRCBC' in short, in the scale of pay of Rs.5310-24000/- (Pay Band-II and Grade Pay- Rs.1800/-) with other admissible allowances, but the petitioner's case was also ignored at that time. Advertent In para 10 of this writ petition, the petitioner has illustrated that the persons similarly circumstanced were also appointed by the said order dated 02.04.2011.
30. It would be apparent from the correspondence under No.F.5(1)/Estt/MED/2013-2014/3229 dated 18.12.2013 (Annexure- P/6 to this writ petition) written by the Deputy General Manager, Mohanpur Electrical Division, the petitioner has been shown as the DRW with effect from the date of his engagement i.e. 21.07.2003. The petitioner had submitted the representation to the Chairman- cum-Managing Director, TSECL on 21.01.2015 to regularize him for his completion of ten years of service w.e.f. 21.07.2003, the date of his joining as the DRW. The petitioner has substantiated how he is entitled to the benefit of regularization in terms of the Government policy, but without any response whatsoever. Thus the petitioner has prayed before the court for his regularization from the date of his Page 24 of 32 crossing the said ten years of service in terms of the said policy decision.
31. The respondents No.2 to 4, by filing the counter-affidavit have not substantially denied the fact as stated in this writ petition. But, in para 12 to the counter-affidavit it has been asserted that the petitioner was not covered by the memoranda dated 01.09.2008 and 31.03.2008 respectively, as by the said memoranda it was stipulated that only those persons holding the status of DRW/Casual/Contingent workers would be considered. They did not state anything else, even there is no evasive reply in relation to the claim and status of the petitioner. The only basis for denying the regular appointment of the petitioner as shown in the counter-affidavit is that his appointment was not approved by the Finance Department. This is no reason for denying someone regularization if otherwise he is entitled to such regularization. The Finance Department cannot act arbitrarily without looking into the papers of engagement. Moreover, the Finance Department has withdrawn the restriction, even those who were engaged without approval, were declared eligible for regularization.
WP(C) NO.233 OF 2016 [SRI PRIYA RANJAN DEBBARMA VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.]
32. The petitioner has averred that on 01.08.1997, he was appointed as the DRW under the Department of Power and subsequently his service was placed under the control of the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, 'TSECL' in short. The Government of Tripura has taken a policy decision as reflected in the Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 to regularize the service of the Page 25 of 32 DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers who have completed 10(ten) years of service as on 31.03.2008. On numerous occasions, the petitioner had approached the competent authority to regularize his service but all fell on the deaf ear. The petitioner has completed his 10(ten) years of service on 01.08.1998 and thus he is entitled to be regularized from that date in terms of the policy which has been implemented by the Government of Tripura. The policy provides that when a person completes 10(ten) years of service in such status, he would be regularized from that day onwards.
WP(C) NO. 241 OF 2016 [SRI JOSODA SAHA VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.]
33. The petitioner has averred in this writ petition that by the order dated 30.05.1998 (Annexure-P/1 to this writ petition), the petitioner has been engaged as the Part Time Worker (PTW) in the office of the SDO (Elect.), 33 KV Sub-Station, College Tilla under the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division No.III, Agartala and without any interruption he has been serving under the respondents. One Nirmal Debnath, whose status has been shown as the PTW by the letter under No.F.1(1)/SLDC/AGT/467 dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure- P/2 to this writ petition) issued by the Senior Manager, TSECL, SLDC, Agartala, has been regularized alongwith seven others by the Memorandum under No.F.6(151)-TSECL/05/Pt-2/10477-88 dated 12.04.2012 (Annexure-P/3 to this writ petition), issued by the Deputy General Manager (Corporate), TSECL. The name of said Nirmal Debnath has appeared at sl.no.5 of the said memorandum dated 12.04.2012. According to the petitioner, he is similarly Page 26 of 32 circumstanced to Nirmal Debnath, but his case was not considered. In para 8 of this writ petition, the petitioner has clearly stated that the period served by him as the Part Time Worker, as has been done by Nirmal Debnath, has not been reckoned for purpose of counting ten years of service as DRW, for regularization of service. Since said Nirmal Debnath has got the benefit in terms of the policy decision of the State, similarly circumstanced persons cannot be discriminated by the State, inasmuch as such discrimination is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, he is squarely covered by the memorandum dated 01.09.2008.
34. On the face of the records, it is apparent that on 31.03.2008 the petitioner did not complete ten years of service. However, the petitioner has submitted that his case is covered by the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure-P/6 to this writ petition). The petitioner has claimed the arrear pay on regularization of his service with effect from the date when he had completed ten years of service. The petitioner has made an alternative prayer to regularize his status from 'PTW' to 'DRW' on completion of 10(ten) years of service.
35. The respondents No. 2 to 4, by filing the reply, have stated that the petitioner is not covered by any of the scheme since his status is 'PTW'. So far the appointment of said Nirmal Debnath is concerned, the State Government did not assign any reason. Such silence is strange inasmuch as knowing that for evasive reply this court can draw an adverse inference against the respondents. Page 27 of 32
36. By filing a rejoinder, the petitioner has submitted that he has been discharging his duties for full 8(eight) hours and has completed 10(ten) years of service. Hence, his status should be treated as DRW.
37. Mr. K. Nath and Mr. P. Maishan, learned counsel has appeared for the petitioners. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appeared for the respondent No.1 and Mr. D.C. Nath learned counsel has appeared for the respondents No.2 to 4.
38. Mr. Maishan, learned counsel has submitted that all the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are covered by the Government policy for regularization. He has contended that those petitioners who have been working as the PTWs, all of them are working for 8(eight) hours a day and as such, they should be deemed as DRWs for all purposes including regularization of their services. That apart, Mr. Maishan, learned counsel has submitted that the State-respondents has not given any explanation. However, Nirmal Debnath, whose name has appeared in the absentee statement as PTW, has been regularized in the post of Group-D alongwith others, but the petitioners have not been considered. Mr. Maishan, learned counsel, in support of his submission, has referred a decision of this court in Smt. Rubi Deb Vs. State of Tripura & Ors. [judgment and order dated 28.06.2016 delivered in W.P.(C) No.131 of 2015 and W.P.(C) No.464 of 2015]. In that decision, this court has observed and directed as follows:
13. This court asked for the relevant records including the attendance registers. From the records as produced, this court has come across that both the petitioners used to sign the registers like any other DRW twice a Page 28 of 32 day. As such, it is hardly believable that they are simply Part Time Workers. Moreover, from the scrutiny of the order dated 14.12.2007, it would be apparent that similarly situated Part Time Worker, namely Smt. Kalpana Saha has been regularized as the Group-D worker in the scale of pay of Rs.2600-3545/- with other allowances as admissible with effect from 01.01.2007.
According to this court, the respondents have completely failed to explain their position in respect of denying the benefit in terms of the memorandum for regularization as referred above. Moreover, in the case of Smti. Biva Thapa, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.464 of 2015, the respondents have acted with hostile discrimination and they have made an unfair attempt to shield their act inasmuch as similarly situated persons were given benefit of regularization. This is a clear violation of Article-14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as by their action the Part Time Workers, similarly situated as the petitioners, were regularized by leaving the petitioners at lurch.
14. Having held so, this court is of the view that the respondents did not act fairly while considering the cases of the petitioners. The petitioner in the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.131/2015, Smti. Rubi Deb, even if is considered as the Part Time Worker like the petitioner in the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.464/2015, Smti. Biva Thapa; on consideration of their working hours, both of them are entitled to be treated as the Full Time Worker, which is the engagement comparable with the Daily Rated Workers and in all respects, they are Full Time Contingent Workers. As such, both the petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularisation under the scheme as stated above. The respondents, particularly the respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to take all required steps to regularize the petitioners with effect from 01.07.2008 as both the petitioners have completed 10(ten) years of service in the required category in terms of the memorandum dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition, being W.P.(C) 131 of 2015). The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date when a copy of this judgment and order shall be placed to the respondents by the petitioner. Hence the writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated.
39. Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners did not have the eligibility under the Government policy to be considered for regularization and as such, these writ petitions are without any substance. All the petitioners are either PTW or CBW or appointed on temporary basis for meeting the local need; such as, in Page 29 of 32 the case of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.231/2016, he was engaged on temporary basis as the Meter Reader.
40. Having perused the averments and the records filed with the writ petitions, this court is of the view that the petitioners have not properly attended the facts so far the status is concerned. It has surfaced before this court that most of the petitioners have claimed that they are Part Time Worker (PTW) or Contract Basis Worker (CBW) or temporary worker for meter reading etc. They have given example of one appointment of Sri Nirmal Debnath as stated above. But, neither Sri Nirmal Debnath nor other persons whose names have been referred in the writ petitions were made parties. Thus, this court is persuaded not to make even any adverse comment against such appointment inasmuch as that would amount to denial of their right to extend defence.
41. There cannot be any amount of doubt, all the petitioners are working in the lowest strata and they have been continuing for considerable tenure with their engagement without any security of job. The State is a model employer. It cannot just throw out one Part Time Worker, Contract Basis Worker or Temporary Workers serving for long years as chattel or they cannot condemn them strapping them with insecurity of a job where the minimum wage is not paid.
42. Having all these factors cumulatively assessed by this court, the respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to re-visit the records of all the writ petitioners by constituting a committee comprised of 2(two) senior-most Executive Officers, to be appointed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, TSECL, within a period of Page 30 of 32 30(thirty) days from the date of receiving the copy of this judgment and order. The said committee shall give the petitioners the opportunity to make representation of their grievance and place all records in respect of their status. The committee shall bring all the service records of the petitioners from the controlling officers or from any other custodians. The committee shall scrutinize the records and appreciate the representation that would be made by the petitioners and thereafter submit the report within another 2(two) months from the date of constitution of the said committee to the Chairman cum Managing Director, TSECL. The committee shall also inquire into whether any Part Time Worker has been directly treated as the DRW for purpose of regularization, or not. They shall also examine the circumstances under which such Part Time Worker, if any, was regularized as the Group-D employee under the policy of regularization as declared by the Government pursuant to the memoranda dated 01.09.2008 and 21.01.2009. The said committee shall also consider their tenure of services, while formulating the report. The committee shall also consider whether the petitioners whose regularization had been refused for working for 4(four) hours a day, whether those petitioners had been working for 8(eight) hours. If it is found that those petitioners were working for eight hours, they shall be treated as DRWs from the date of their engagement as PTWs for purpose of regularization in the commensurate posts.
43. On examining the report, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director shall pass the appropriate and reasoned order and shall act accordingly. It is expected that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director Page 31 of 32 shall take a decision within 6(six) weeks from the date when he would receive the report from the said committee.
44. In view of the above observation and direction, all the writ petitions, being WP(C) No.225 of 2016, WP(C) No.226 of 2016, WP(C) No.227 of 2016, WP(C) No.228 of 2016, WP(C) No.229 of 2016, WP(C) No.230 of 2016, WP(C) No.231 of 2016, WP(C) No.232 of 2016, WP(C) No.233 of 2016, WP(C) No.241 of 2016, are allowed to the extent as indicated above.
The petitioners shall furnish a copy of this judgment and order to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, TSECL as expeditiously as possible.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE ROY Page 32 of 32