Sankar Acharjee vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition.

Petitioner has prayed for a direction to grant him regularization in service in terms of the Government of Tripura policy contained in a memorandum dated 21.01.2009.

Brief facts are as under:

Case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a full time Typist on casual basis under the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Tripura w.e.f. 01.06.1988. He has been discharging such duties almost continuously since then. The petitioner would rely on a letter dated 13.11.2008 issued by the Executive Engineer, Sonamura Division, PWD to the Engineering Officer to Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Tripura in which it is stated that the petitioner was working under the control of the said Division as a Typist from 01.06.1988 till the date of the letter. His duty hours were 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. When his name was forwarded his designation was written as contractual worker due to typographical error. The petitioner has also relied on another similar letter dated 11.08.2009 written by the Executive Engineer, Sonamura Division, PWD to the Chief Engineer in which also these details are provided.

In background of such facts, the petitioner relies on the Government of Tripura policy to regularize casual workers upon completion of 10 years of service as contained in the said memorandum dated 21.01.2009. This memorandum provides that subject to fulfillment of conditions contained in the said office memorandum the eligible workers would be provided pay scale in the relevant post upon completion of 10 years of service without break from the date of joining duty.

In an affidavit-in-reply dated 03.04.2019 filed by Sri Pradip Chandra Das, Under Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Public Works Department the stand taken is that the petitioner was not engaged as a casual worker but was a contractual worker. The Government scheme for regularization does not include contractual workers. In this context, the respondents have produced a memorandum dated 11.08.2004 issued by the Under Secretary which contains a list of workers placed at the disposal of Executive Engineer, Southern Division. The petitioner is one of them and is described as a contractual worker.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder denying the averments made in the reply. Along with the rejoinder the petitioner has produced a letter dated 13.06.2014 written by the Executive Engineer, Sonamura Division to the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B) which reads as under:

"Respected Sir,

With reference to the subject mentioned above I am to inform you that the particulars of Part-time workers/Casual Workers/ Contingent workers/Daily Rated workers who are working under this Division as desired under above reference is appended herewith as per Format for further disposal from your end please."

Along with this letter a list in prescribed format providing information of Daily rated/Casual/Contingent workers engaged by the said department on full-time basis is attached. The name of the petitioner is at Sl. No.1. He is shown to have been engaged in the office of Executive Engineer, Sonamura PWD (R&B) Division since 01.06.1988. This document also gives the details of concurrence of Finance Department and provides the file number as well as the date of the order of such concurrence of the Finance Department as under:

"No.F.10(22)FIN(G)/DRW/2004, dated-11/08/2004"

Since there is an apparent conflict in the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit-in-reply and the said letter dated 13.06.2014 of the Executive Engineer, this Court passed an order on 18.12.2019 which reads as under:

"The petitioner has produced a certificate of Executive Engineer, Sonamura Division of Public Works Department which shows that the petitioner had been engaged in the said office since 01.06.1988 and that the concurrence of the Finance Department for engaging him as a Daily Rated Worker was granted on 11.08.2004. The details of such concurrence order is as under:

"NO.F.10(22)FIN(G)/DRW/2004, dated-11/08/2004."

This document runs counter to the stand of the department that the petitioner was never engaged as a daily worker but was a contractual labourer. Since this document is produced in the rejoinder, let the respondents have an opportunity to explain it. The respondents shall file an affidavit on this point and along with the affidavit shall produce the said concurrence order of the Finance Department.

List the matter on 17th January, 2020."

Pursuant to such order the respondents have filed a further affidavit dated 14.01.2020 in which except for disclaiming the petitioner's averment that he was engaged as a casual worker and not on contractual basis, no further elaboration has been made on the controversy at hand.

The respondents have not disputed that the petitioner is continuously working as Typist since 01.06.1988 till date or that his engagement was on full time basis. Only controversy is whether such engagement was on casual basis or contractual. The respondents, as noted above, have averred that the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis and, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of regularization flowing from the Government of Tripura policy contained in office memorandum dated 21.01.2009.

However, as noted the Executive Engineer, Sonamura in several communications has categorically stated that the petitioner is engaged as a casual worker. This was conveyed by him in his letter dated 13.11.2008 and reiterated in the further letter dated 11.08.2009. Whatever doubt there may be, should be removed since along with the letter dated 13.06.2014 written by the Executive Engineer he had annexed a list of workers engaged under his establishment. With respect to the petitioner he not only referred to him as a casual worker, also provided the file number and the date of order of the concurrence from the Finance Department.

The Government of Tripura cannot disown such documents which emanate from the Executive Engineer under whom the petitioner has been working since decades. The Executive Engineer is part of the establishment of the Public Works Department of State of Tripura. His reference to the concurrence order of the Finance Department for engagement of the petitioner, therefore, assumes considerable significance. The respondents were given an opportunity to meet with the said document dated 13.06.2014. In the further affidavit the respondents have thrown no further light on the contents of the said letter. The least they could have done was either to state clearly that there is no such concurrence order as is referred to in the list annexed to the said letter dated 13.06.2014 or in the alternative produced such an order which would have clinched the issue one way or the other. The respondents having done neither, inference must be drawn against the respondents that the contents of the letter of the Executive Engineer dated 13.06.2014 and the accompanying document are correct.

In the result, the sole objection of the respondents to regularizing the petitioner that he was a contractual worker and not a casual worker is overruled. The respondents shall give a benefit of the scheme flowing from the office memorandum dated 21.01.2009 and grant regularization to the petitioner subject to fulfillment of the conditions from the due date of completion of 10 years of service. This shall be done within a period of one month from today. The period between the date of regularization till date would be notional benefits to the petitioner. Actual difference in salary would be paid prospectively from the date of regularization.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

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