Bikash Acharjee vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner who has been initially engaged as the casual cleaner in the month of January, 2003 and had drawn his first wage bill No.339 dated 11.02.2003, in the month of February, 2003 has urged this court to regularise his service in terms of the memorandum under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 21.01.2009 [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents]. The petitioner has stated that he should have been regularised when the order under No.F.2-1(13)-ESTT/DF/2015/16029-38 dated 29.09.2016 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] was passed. But at that time, he was not so regularised as his date of engagement was wrongly mentioned as September, 2003 as gathered from the letter under No.F.1(39)-CS/ESTT/2014/1130 dated 04.06.2014.

Based on the said information, the Finance Department declined to include his name in the approved list of casual/contingent workers for purpose of regularisation. Noticing such mistake, the Officer-in-Charge, Central Stores, A.D. Nagar, Agartala placed the papers to correct the said mistake, to the Director of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Tripura, Agartala by the letter dated 02.10.2016 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] in which, he has categorically stated as under :

"On scrutiny of office records it is found that Sri Bikash Acharjee was engaged during the month of January, 2003 and he was paid his wages of Rs.1,200/- vide Bill No.339 dated, 11.02.2003 against cheque No.758972 dated 11.02.2003. Photo copies of Bill and Cash Book in support of the statement narrated above are enclosed herewith for kind consideration."

It was followed the subsequent letter dated 25.07.2017 from the Officer-in-Charge, Central Stores, A.D. Nagar, Agartala. Thereafter, the Additional Secretary-cum-the Director of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs requested the Finance Department to concur the proposal of the department for regularisation of the petitioner who was engaged as the casual cleaner prior to 31.03.2003 on completion of ten years of service in the department. But no action has been taken under the cirumstances, the petitioner has approached this court to have the equal treatment vis-a-vis the persons whose name has appeared in the order dated 29.09.2016.

The respondents have filed their reply and stated that since the petitioner's name was not there in the list approved by the Finance Department dated 27.11.2015 [Annexure-R/4 to the reply filed by the respondents], he was not regularised. But they have not denied that the immediate action was taken from the department to have the concurrence of the Finance Department by correcting the mistake.

Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted that the scheme of regularisation has been recalled and repealed by the memorandum No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 31.07.2018 and therefore, no regularisation can be allowed as urged in this writ petition.

Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that for a mistake committed by the department in respect of the date of engagement, the petitioner's regularisation could not occur on 29.09.2016 when the several other casual/contingent workers were regularised in the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department from the day when they had completed ten years of requisite service.

Having appreciated the records as produced with the writ petition and the record separately produced by the respondents, this court is of the view that for the mistake committed by the Department, the petitioner's name was not concurred by the Finance Department. But the petitioner was entitled to such concurrence for purpose of regularisation.

Hence, the petitioner be regularised from the date when he had completed ten years of service in the casual employment but his pay and allowances shall be notional till 30.09.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be entitled to the financial and other service benefits.

The respondents are further directed to cause such regularisation in terms of the above within a period of three months from the date when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order. It is to be noted that the denial was caused on 29.09.2016 when the scheme for regularisation was in force and similarly situated persons had been given the benefit of that scheme as reflected in the order dated 29.09.2016. The petitioner was arbitrarily excluded and it was the duty of the respondents to appoint the petitioner with effect from the day when the persons catalogued in the order dated 29.09.2016 were regularised. It is made further clear that the subsequent repeal of the scheme for regularisation will not affect the case of the petitioner.

In terms of the above, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.