Sri Prasenjit Banerjee and ors v. The State of Tripura and ors
Court: High Court of Tripura
Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Tripura judgment dated 2024-07-02. Sri Prasenjit Banerjee and ors v. The State of Tripura and ors. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA IA No. 01 of 2024 in WA No. 35 of 2024 Sri Prasenjit Banerjee & Ors. ...... Appellant-Applicant(s) V E R S U S The State of Tripura & Ors. ...... Respondent(s) For Appellant-Applicant(s) : Mr. C S Sinha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, GA. BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA Order 02. 07. 2024 I. A No. 01 of 2024 Heard Mr. C. S Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicants and Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the State-respondents. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the explanation urged, the delay of 140 days is condoned. I. A. is disposed of. WA No. 35 of 2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal as well. The petitioners were appointed as Civil Defence Workers between 1995 to 2001. They approached the Writ Court in W. P. (C) No.
498 of 2023 for regularization of their services from the dates of their joining with consequential reliefs. The regularization scheme bearing order No. F. 2(9-Misc)-th MS/ESTT-III/2005 dated 7 December, 2012 under which the writ petitioners sought to be regularized was repealed by a conscious decision of st State Government contained in the memorandum dated 31 July, 2018. Both the Memorandum have been evidenced by the learned Writ Court. The writ petitioners have been converted to DRW status in the year 2012. This was done with concurrence of the Finance Department. Learned Writ Court however has held that since the scheme for regularization which st operated for 10(ten) long years has been repealed on 31 July 2018, no claim for regularization can be allowed nor any direction can be issued upon the Government to re-open the scheme and consider the cases of these writ petitioners. The writ petition has also been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn our st attention to Paragraphs- 4 and 5 of the memorandum dated 1 August, 2018. The same are quoted hereunder: “4. The policy decision of the Government for regularizing the services of DRW/Casual/Contingent Workers after 10 years of services has been reviewed and in supersessions of all the memorandums, new memo has been issued with F. No. 10(2)-FIN(G)/2018(Part), dated, 31. 07. 2018. 5. Therefore, it has been decided that there shall not be any engagement of DRW/Casual/Contingent Workers in any office under State Government without concurrence of Finance department. Payment of salary/wages/remuneration or any type of financial benefit for engagement is fully prohibited. Responsibility of any new engagement and paying of wages/ salary etc.
for DRW/PTW/MRW/Contingent Workers/ Contractual employees including re-appointment/ re-engagement without finance department approval will be fixed on the concerned HODs for engagement and payment and the concerned officer will come under departmental proceeding for violation of the financial rules of the State. ” st By this memorandum and the memorandum dated 31 July, 2018 all other previous schemes were repealed. They are in fact referred to at Paragraph-8 of the impugned judgment and also cover the schemes dated st th 21 January, 2009 and 7 December, 2012 relating to regularization of DRWs/Casual/Contingent etc. workers on completion of 10 years of th service. In the Memo dated 7 November, 2012 it was contemplated that those part-time workers engaged as DRWs/Group-D working in different departments of the Government for 2/3/4 hours who were engaged on or st st prior to 31 March, 2003 and had completed 10 years of service w. e. f 1 December, 2012 were to be regularized.
However, since both st memorandums stand repealed by the office memorandum dated 31 July, st 2018 and reiterated in the memorandum dated 1 August, 2018 (Annexure- 3 of the writ appeal) issued by Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, no legal right to seek regularization exists in favour of the st petitioners. Paragraph 5 of the office memorandum dated 1 August, 2018 on the other hand provides that there shall not be any engagement of DRWs/Casual/Contingent workers in any office under the State Government without concurrence of the Finance Department. This only reiterates the extant position that after repeal of the st st regularization schemes by OM dated 31 July, 2018/ 1 August, 2018 any fresh engagement of DRWs could not be without concurrence of the Finance Department. This, in any event, it does not create a right for regularization.
The petitioners have chosen to sleep over their rights for considerable period and approached this Court in 2023, five years after the abolition of the scheme. As such, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (S. D. PURKAYASTHA) J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH) CJ Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH SUJAY GHOSH Date: 2024. 07. 05 17:20:15 +05'30' Sujay
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.