Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Absentee statement in Sri Uttam Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 20 July, 2017Matching Fragments
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) 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.
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.
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: