Bina Biswas (Shil) vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Ms. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. None appears for the remaining respondents despite due notice from this court.

At the outset Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that at para-15 of the reply, filed by the respondents No.1 and 2, it has been clearly stated, even though the allegations made by the petitioner have not been admitted by the respondents, that the Department of Animal Resource Development (ARD) is alert about welfare of the employees and as soon as the prayer of the petitioner along with others was received for regularization in the post of LFW w.e.f. 01.09.2016 on their completion of 15 years of service, the prayer was processed to the Finance Department for getting concurrence for regularization of total 75 persons including the petitioner to the post of Livestock Farm Worker (LFW). The Finance Department had given their concurrence for regularization of 28 PLs out of 75 PLs. The petitioner's name was also approved for regularization. But for decision of the Council of Ministers held on 5th April 2018, further action thereon has been kept in hold. Ms. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the regularization cannot be kept on hold. The respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to unlock the hold as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 has submitted that the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to be considered for regularization. If the petitioner's name was approved by the Finance Department after consideration of all aspects for regularization and if she was found suitable for regularization, the State would regularize her.

Be that as it may, since the respondents No.1 and 2 have admitted that in the list of 28 Permanent Labourers (PLs), the petitioner's name does figure there cannot be any impediment to regularize the petitioner. The respondents are therefore directed to consider the regularization of the petitioner within a period of six months from today. It is made absolutely clear that the statement made in the reply will be subject to further verification by the competent authority.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any decision taken by the respondents No.1 and 2, she will be at liberty to approach this court on the same cause or causes that might occur subsequently.

There shall be no order as to costs.