AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent.
[2] The sole controversy raised in the present writ petition is whether the service of the petitioner can be regularized under the respondents. The admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed as fulltime Daily Rated Worker (DRW for short)on 02.12.2004 and still he has been serving under the State-respondents with full sincerity and devotion. He has submitted several representations for regularization of his service but those representations were not considered by the State-respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition for regularization.
[3] It is the clear stand of the State-respondents that the scheme for regularization of DRW, as prescribed in memorandum dated 7th December, 2012 will not be applicable in the facts of the present case. The scheme clearly provides that regularization of service of DRWs / Casual /Contingent etc. workers of PSUs/other Autonomous Organizations of the State-Government engaged on fulltime on or prior to 31.03.2003 and on completion of 10 (ten) years of service, their service will be entitled to be regularized.
[4] The grievance of the petitioner as agitated is that the determination of the cutoff date for the purpose of regularization of the categories of employees/workers as stated in the scheme. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the determination of the cutoff date as 31.03.2003 is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The benefit of regularization has eliminated as large chunk of daily rated workers who were engaged after 31.03.2003. Ms. Purkayastha learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Court has the power to expand the scope, considering the fact that the petitioner has been serving the department since his appointment i.e. w.e.f. 02.12.2004.
[5] I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. The Government of Tripura in its wisdom has determined the cutoff date as 31.03.2003 for regularization of the daily rated workers who have completed 10 years of continuous service and who were appointed on or prior to 31.03.2003 and indisputably, the petitioner was appointed after 31.03.2003. Hence, the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the said scheme as formulated vide memorandum dated 7th February, 2012.
[6] This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India and also applying the rule of statutory interpretation is of the view that Court cannot expand or widen the scope in regard to the time frame specifically stipulated in plain and clear language, in the scheme unless and until the Court is convinced that such scheme is hit by Articles- 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. But, this is not a case where this Court finds that the respondent while framing the scheme has made a departure from the well-entranced principles of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. The decision of the concerned authority i.e. the State-respondents who did not consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization would not suffer from any arbitrariness.
[7] Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief on the premise that the cutoff date as determined by the Government of Tripura should be expanded by this Court. However, it is the admitted position that the petitioner has been discharging his duties under the State-respondents for the last 16 (sixteen) years continuously. In that situation, the respondents may consider his regularization if he is covered by any of the rules framed by the State-Government.
[8] With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stand disposed of.