CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 04 TP CK 0108

Pranati Debnath vs State Of Tripura And Others

Tripura High Court · Decided on 23 April 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Akil Kureshi, CJ
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 329 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 348 words
1.

The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint her to Group-D post in Tripura Handloom & Handicrafts Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as Corporation, for short).

2.

According to the petitioner, she has been engaged by the said Corporation on work order basis since 1996 and in similar circumstances other persons who were so engaged, have been regularized by the Corporation.

3.

The respondents have appeared and filed reply in which it is stated that the petitioner had never served in the Corporation as a Group-D employee. The claim of the petitioner is not based on any rules, regulation or scheme applicable to the Corporation. It is stated that the petitioner is an artisan and had been approaching the Corporation for providing handicraft products. This continued for 2 to 3 years from 1989-90, however, this discontinued. The petitioner has not been attending the office from 1992 to 2014. The petitioner had worked only on a piece rate basis for which she was paid at the agreed rate at the relevant time. It is pointed out that the Corporation has regularized the services of other DRWs in terms of the scheme for regularization. However, the case of the petitioner is vitally different.

4.

It can thus be seen that the claim of the petitioner is based on sketchy averments. The petitioner also does not claim to have worked with the Corporation as a DRW or a contingent worker. The period during which the petitioner has worked is also strongly disputed by the department. According to the respondents, the petitioner had supplied handicraft items to the Corporation on piece rate basis for a couple of years in 1989-90 or thereabouts. The respondents have categorically stated that from the year 1992 onwards the petitioner had stopped even visiting the Corporation office. The petitioner has neither produced any documents to rebut these averments of the respondents filed in affidavit nor produced any other material in support of her case.

5.

In the result, petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.