Manindra Tripura vs State Of Tripura

[1] Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Sujata Deb(Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the Tripura State Electricity Corporation.

[2] The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for regularization of his service. It is stated that the petitioner was first engaged as fulltime Daily Rated Worker on 22.05.1992 under the erstwhile department of Power, Govt. of Tripura. Subsequently, power department was merged with Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. and all the employees of erstwhile power department were taken over by the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd (TSECL for short).

[3] Vide memorandum dated 4th September, 2012, the Government of Tripura had adopted the scheme for regularization of Daily Rated Workers/MRWs/Contingent Workers/Casual etc., Workers/Consolidated Fixed Pay/Fixed Pay Workers of State PSUs and other Autonomous Bodies including Agartala Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats. There is no dispute that the case of the petitioner is covered by the memorandum dated 4th September, 2012 issued by the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura. It is decided in the said scheme that all the daily rated workers etc., who were engaged on or prior to 31.03.2003 with or without prior concurrence of Finance Department on full time basis and have completed 10 (ten) years of service, would be considered for regularization subject to fulfillment of some conditions.

[4] The controversy had cropped up when the petitioner was absorbed as DRW under the Group-D category w.e.f. 1st December, 2012, providing financial benefits prospectively. The claim of the petitioner is that since he was appointed in the year 1992 i.e. 22.05.1992 and completed his 10 years of service on 22.05.2002, his regularization would have to be considered w.e.f. 23.05.2002 in terms of the memorandum dated 4th September, 2012.

[5] Mrs. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation has submitted that the petitioner was engaged as PTW which post is outside the purview of the scheme, but, Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the memorandum dated 23rd August, 1997 issued by the department of Power, Government of Tripura wherein, the said department had published a list of persons indicating particular designation against such persons.

[6] The name of the petitioner appears in the list at Sl. No. 359. It reveals that particulars of the petitioner were also maintained by the Dy. General Manager, Electrical Division No. VII, Ambassa, Dhalai District wherein, the designation of the petitioner was indicated as DRW and his date of engagement/appointment was mentioned as 22.05.1992 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).

[7] On perusal of the aforesaid document, makes it clear that the petitioner was first engaged as fulltime worker, DRW w.e.f. 22.05.1992 and he completed his 10 (ten) years of service as DRW on 22.05.2002 & in terms of the scheme dated 4th September, 2012, his service should be considered for regularization w.e.f. 23.05.2002. But the respondents by issuing an office order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) had stated that the petitioner was absorbed as DRW under Group-D category w.e.f. 1st December, 2012 but the financial benefit was given with prospective effect.

[8] In view of the above observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the service of the petitioner ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 23.05.2002 since he has completed his 10 (ten) years of service on 22.05.2002.

[9] Having held thus, I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his service w.e.f. 23.05.2002, deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as regular DRW under Group-D category w.e.f. 23.05.2002. However, it is made clear that the financial benefits as per the scheme will be provided and allowed to the petitioner notionally in terms of the scheme dated 4th September, 2012 and he will not be entitled to any back wages.

[10] With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.