Allowed

Abhijit Barua v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC3 Nov 2017WP(C)/1353/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought regularization and arrears of financial benefits as a Group-D employee after claiming 10 years of service. The Court found conflicting government documents regarding the petitioner's status as a Daily Rated Worker, Full-time, or Part-time worker. It directed the respondents to make a fresh inquiry within one month and, if eligibility is confirmed, regulari

What did the court decide?

Directs respondents to make a fresh inquiry within one month. If petitioner is found to have completed 10 years as DRW, he shall be regularized within three months with all service and financial benef

Abhijit Barua Vs the State of Tripura and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

WP(C) 1353 of 2016

¶3

Sri Abhijit Barua, S/o Sri Bijoy Barua, R/o Vill: Kumarghat, P.O. Kumarghat, P.S. Kumarghat, District: North Tripura.

¶4

………… Petitioner

¶5

- Vs –
1. The State of Tripura
represented by its Commissioner, Public Govt. of Tripura, P.O. Capital Complex, Distr	Secretary cum Works Department, Kunjaban, P.S. New ict-West Tripura.
2. The Chief Engine	er, Public Works
Department, Govt.	of Tripura, P.O.
Kunjaban, P.S. New District-West Tripura.	Capital Complex,
3. The Executive Engin	eer, Public Works
Department, Water	Resource Division
No.VI, Govt. of	Tripura, P.O.&P.S.
Kailashahar, District: U 4. The Secretary cum Co	nakoti, Tripura. mmissioner, Finance
Department, Govt.	of Tripura, P.O.
Kunjaban, P.S. New District-West Tripura.	Capital Complex,	…….Respondents

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate For the respondents : Ms AS Lodh, Addl. GA Date of hearing & delivery of judgment &order : 03.11.2017 Whether fit for reporting : No .

¶9

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶10

Heard Mr. A Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the

¶11

petitioner as well as Ms AS Lodh, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents.

¶12

WP(C) 1353 of 2016

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged this Court to regularize him as a Group-D employee in terms of the memorandum under No. F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008 (Part) dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure-P/1) to the writ petition and to grant him all arrear financial benefits in terms thereof.

¶15

3. The petitioner has claimed that he was appointed in the month of September, 2001 as a Daily Rated Worker (DRW) for discharging the duties of a Group-D employee under the respondents. In support of the contention regarding his engagement, the petitioner has submitted a slew of documents including the communication dated 16.10.2003 (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition) whereby the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Management, Division-VI, North Tripura, Kailashahar has declared the petitioner as DRW since September, 2001 at Rs.50/- per day and also declared that the petitioner was engaged for meeting urgent requirement for collection of water, sweeping and typing works, etc. by the Assistant Engineer concerned. The petitioner has also placed reliance on a communication dated 25.06.2004 (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition) whereby the Under Secretary to the Finance Department, Government of Tripura asked the concerned officers to verify whether the petitioner whose name was appearing in the Sl. No. 151 was working as DRW since 2001 having the daily wage @ Rs. 50/- per day or not.

¶16

4. It appears further from the particulars of the DRWs, as sent by the communication dated 25.01.2011 (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition) that on verification it was found that the petitioner was engaged as the DRW w.e.f. September, 2011 and he was getting the consolidated pay of Rs.3,876/-. Further, the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division-VI,

¶17

WP(C) 1353 of 2016

¶18

Page 2 of 7

¶19

Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura by his communication dated 27.11.2012 (Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition) has affirmed that the petitioner has been working since September, 2001 in the said Division. It would be apparent from the memorandum dated 20.03.2013 (Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition) that some of the part-time workers were engaged as DRWs w.e.f. 01.02.2012 but in the said list the name of the petitioner does not appear as part-time worker.

¶20

5. Mr. A Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn notice of this Court to the memorandum dated 11.12.2015 to show that the petitioner’s name has appeared at Sl. No. 1 showing that he is discharging the duties of Group-C employees under the Water Resources Division-VI at Kailashahar and he was getting a sum of Rs.4,539/- inasmuch as the petitioner was HS+2 examination passed.

¶21

6. From another communication dated 30.06.2016 (AnnexureP/9 to the writ petition) written by the Technical Assistant to the Superintending Engineer, Kumarghat, Unakoti, Tripura it appears that the petitioner was working as the DRW (Clerical) and he joined as DRW on 10.09.2001 and had completed 10 years of service on 10.09.2011.

¶22

7. The respondents by filing their reply have however controverted the status of the petitioner as DRW since 10.09.2001. They have contended that the petitioner was working as the part-time worker from that time. To support such contention they have placed reliance on the memorandum dated 20.03.2011 (Annexure-R/2 to the reply) where in the annexed list, the name of the petitioner is shown as regularized as DRW (Group-D) w.e.f. 01.12.2012. In the said list, it appears strangely that the petitioner has been shown as DRW under the said list of those who are

¶23

WP(C) 1353 of 2016

¶24

Page 3 of 7

¶25

converted from part-time worker to the DRW. However, Mr. A Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has seriously contradicted the said statement and relied on a document, a communication made to the Chief Engineer, PWD (Water Resources) on 09.10.2012 (Anenxure-2 to the rejoinder). It appears from the said communication and its enclosure that the petitioner was never shown as DRW as on 09.10.2012 though the said memorandum converted the status of the petitioner from part-time worker to DRW (Group-D) which was issued on 20.03.2013 (Annexure-R/2 to the reply).

¶26

8. On the premise that since the petitioner has completed 10 years of service as DRW by means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged for directing the respondents to regularize him in terms of the memorandum dated 21.09.2009 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition). The said memorandum provides as under:

¶27

“No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) GOVERNMENT OF Tripura Department of Finance Dated, Agartala, the 31^st January, 2009.

¶28

MEMORANDUM

¶29

Subject: Regularisation of services of CRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers on the next date of completion of 10 years of service.

¶30

The undersigned is directed to inform that the Government has taken a policy decision to regularize services of full-time DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers from the next date of completion of 10 years of service and fulfil the following criterion as per Department-wise names and particulars attached herewith:

¶31

(i) DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers who were engaged on a full time basis in different Departments with or without concurrence of Finance Department other than Permanent Labourers, Part-time workers, Anganwadi Workers and Helpers, Home Guards, Teachers and Workers engaged under SSA and other Schemes/programmes, may be considered for regularization as per names attached.

¶32

(ii) Requirement of age as per Recruitment Rules will be deemed to be relaxed for the purpose of this regularization.

¶33

WP(C) 1353 of 2016

¶34

Page 4 of 7

¶35

(iii) Requirement of educational qualification as per Recruitment Rules will be deemed as relaxed for regularization under Group-D only. In case of DRW/and Contingent Workers who were appointed under Group-C category, educational qualification as required under concerned R.R. must be ensured while entertaining their cases for regularisation.

¶36

(iv) Except age and educational qualification mentioned in point (ii) & (iii) all other criterion as per relevant Recruitment Rules including reservation roster will have to be followed strictly for this process of regularization. (v) Subject to fulfilment of above conditions, the eligible workers will be provided pay scale in the relevant post on the following day of completion of 10 years of service (without any break) from the date of joining. In the event of revision of pay scales the revised structure will be followed as per Govt’s decision.

¶37

2. To facilitate quick action for implementation of the above decisions, appropriate authorities of the concerned Administrative Departments of the State Government are authorized to take following actions:

¶38

i) The Departments will scrutinize the records and particulars of the workers whose names and particulars are included in the annexure attached herewith to ascertain their eligibility for regularization. Only those workers out of the attached annexure who fulfils all the above criteria are to be regularized.

¶39

ii) While ascertaining eligibility, other than relaxation made in respect of educational qualification and age, other requirements like nationality, reservation quota are to be followed strictly. All original documents shall be checked by the Departments to ensure genuineness of records/documents.

¶40

iii) After ascertaining the number of eligible cases, the department will take steps for creation of required number of posts in the appropriate category including creating of post for SC and ST as per 100 point roster for accommodating them in the concerned pay scale for regularization. The computation is to be done to ensure 31% reservation for ST & 17% reservation for SC against the number of UR candidates as per list enclosed without brining any previous backlog. Formal appointment orders are to be issued by concerned appropriate authority accordingly. After taking this step department will send proposal to the Finance Department for ex-post-facto concurrence for creation of posts.

¶41

iv) Following regularization of the eligible cases out of list attached herewith, the Departments are required to take action to ensure recruitment of shortfall of candidates under ST&SC category to fulfil the roster. In respect of such shortfall under Group D category, the Tribal Welfare Department would act as the Nodal Department for selection of required number of candidates and sponsoring them to the respective Department. The Departments are requested to send a report to the Finance Department within one month immediately after action taken as per the instant Memorandum along with list of workers regularized.

¶42

WP(C) 1353 of 2016

¶43

Page 5 of 7

¶44

3. There shall be a complete ban on engagement of DRW/Casual/Contingent etc. workers after 31.3.2003 without concurrence from Finance Department. Responsibility shall be fixed on the official found responsible for any irregular engagement henceforth. Such irregular engagement shall have to be instantly terminated. The wages, if paid any, shall be recovered from the official concerned.

¶45

4. The undersigned is directed to request all concerned to ensure strict implementation of the above decisions.

¶46

Sd/- Illegible (N. Das) Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura.”

¶47

9 . On appreciation of the submission advanced by the counsel

¶48

for the parties and averments of the petitioner and the respondents, this Court is really in quandary how the government documents can be so conflicting leaving a person flabbergasted because nothing can be churned out definitely. But from the basic documents as produced by the petitioner it appears that consistently the petitioner has been shown as the full time DRW and he was getting wage against that status. Even the Executive Engineer who had appointed the petitioner had certified the petitioner as the DRW from September, 2001 and as such the petitioner is otherwise covered by the policy as expounded by the memorandum dated 21.01.2009.

¶49

10. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the respondents shall make a fresh inquiry about the status of the petitioner including whether the petitioner was discharging the duties of the Group-D employee or Group-C employee as DRW or as part-time worker. Such inquiry shall be completed within a period of one month from the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order. If it is found on appreciation of the documents and the official records that the petitioner was working as DRW, Group-C or Group-D and had completed 10 years

¶50

WP(C) 1353 of 2016

¶51

Page 6 of 7

¶52

of service as claimed, he shall be regularized in terms of the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 within a period of three months therefrom. It is expected that the respondents shall fairly act and shall not unnecessarily deprive the petitioner from getting the security of his engagement. It is made clear that in terms of the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 the petitioner shall get all service and financial benefits.

¶53

11. It is further stated that at the time of inquiry the petitioner shall be provided with reasonable opportunity to place his documents before the Inquiring Authority as would be constituted by the appointing authority for the above purpose.

¶54

12. In terms thereof, this petition stands allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

lodh

WP(C) 1353 of 2016

Page 7 of 7

Abhijit Barua v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijit Barua v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binay Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

The Union Of India Vs Smt. Sumita Chakma and Anr.

Kajal Dey Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Smriti Goswami Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Amar Modak Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Ranjit Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.