Jadu Das vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] The petitioner has prayed for a direction to convert his engagement from Part Time Worker to Daily Rated Worker (DRW) w.e.f. 1st December, 2012 in terms of Government of Tripura office memorandum dated 7th November, 2012.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The petitioner was engaged as a Part Time Worker under the Deputy General Manager, Electrical Sub-Division, Ambassa, Dhalai by the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited ('TSECL' for short). Since then he has been working as a part-timer. The Government of Tripura framed a scheme for converting part-time engagements into DRW by office memorandum dated 7th November, 2012. As per this office memorandum, all Part Time Workers who had been engaged prior to 31st March, 2012 and who had completed 10(ten) years of engagement and were paid from Government funds, would be made DRW w.e.f. 1st December, 2012. The TSECL had adopted such a scheme. The petitioner contends that he fulfils all the conditions of the said scheme and was, therefore, entitled to the status of DRW. The petitioner would point out that number of similarly situated Daily Rated Workers have been granted such benefits, in some cases with the intervention of the Court. The petitioner has joined respondent No.5, a private respondent who according to the petitioner, is similarly situated and has received the benefit of the said scheme. The petitioner had made a representation to the authorities on 7th January 2017 for grant of benefit of the said office memorandum dated 7th November 2012, where the respondents gave no response, this petition was filed.

[3] TSECL has filed an affidavit in which all that has been stated is that the petitioner was engaged as a Part Time Worker. The power to upgrade his status lies only with the head of the department. The corporation had sent a proposal to the Finance Department for upgradation of the petitioner into DRW in terms of the memorandum dated 7th November, 2012. So far approval of the Finance Department is awaited.

[4] The Government of Tripura has also filed affidavit in which similar stand is taken. It is stated that considering the previous service of the petitioner his name has been proposed for grant of benefit of the office memorandum dated 7th November, 2012. Approval of the Finance Department is awaited.

[5] It is rather unfortunate that the Government after having framed a scheme for conversion of part-time engagement into DRW subject to certain conditions, has failed to extend the benefit of such a scheme for close to 8(eight) years in case of the petitioner. The respondents do not dispute that the petitioner was engaged as a Part Time Worker in the year 1988 and continued to discharge his duties since then. Neither the TSECL nor the Government of Tripura contend in the affidavits that the petitioner does not fulfil any of the conditions of the said office memorandum dated 7th November, 2012. In plain terms, there is no opposition by the petitioner's prayer for grant of the benefit of the said office memorandum. All that is stated is that approval of the Finance Department is necessary and such approval is awaited.

[6] Being a benevolent scheme framed by the Government itself, it was expected that the Government and its agencies suo-motu undertake the exercise of finding out of those workers who would be covered by the scheme. The Government or for that matter TSECL should not expect each and every lowly paid, poorly educated part-time workers to move the authority for grant of the benefit extended by the Government on its own. In any case, the State and its agencies should not require such workers to move the Court for appropriate reliefs. In the present case, instead of applying the scheme to the petitioner on its own, even after the petitioner filed a representation, no active steps were taken by the TSECL or the Government to expedite consideration for grant of the benefit. Since 2017 the petitioner and now the Court is being told that the only reason why the petitioner is not given the benefit of the said office memorandum is that the approval of the Finance Department is necessary and such approval is pending.

[7] The inertia on part of the official-respondents cannot be appreciated. In a case, as clear as the present one, verification of the official records and a decision to grant the benefit of the scheme ought to have been taken shortly after the issuance of office memorandum in the year 2012 itself. For years together, the corporation as well as the State Government took no such steps. Even when the petitioner filed a representation, the authorities did not move with desired promptness. Even after filing of the petition, the authorities took no active steps to resolve the grievances of the petitioner.

[8] Under the circumstances, in addition to a direction for grant of the benefit of the said scheme from the due date, the petitioner must also receive at least a portion of the ideal wages. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, such ideal wages can be paid back at 25% of back wages.

[9] In the result, the petition is disposed of with following directions:

(a) The respondents, in terms of the scheme framed under office memorandum dated 7th November 2012, shall grant the status of DRW to the petitioner from 1st December, 2012.

(b) The petitioner would accordingly be treated as a DRW w.e.f. 1st December, 2012 for all purposes except payment of full difference in salary which would be limited to 25% of the total difference payable.

[10] These directions shall be carried out within a period of 4(four) months from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.