State Of Tripura And Ors vs Sankar Acharjee

Heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the appellants.

By means of this intra court appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 17.01.2020 delivered in WP(C)No.98 of 2019 whereby learned single judge has directed the appellants to extend the benefit of the scheme of regularization, as notified by the office memorandum dated 21.01.2009 by regularizing the writ petitioner for his completing ten years of service as casual employee. Learned single judge has also directed the respondents to regularize the writ petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the judgment. Further, it has been observed that for the period between the date of regularization from the date of judgment, the benefit should be notional and the actual difference of salary would be paid prospectively from the date of regularization.

Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the appellants has drawn our attention to the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 under No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) and submitted that the scheme for regularization was only for DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers and not for the contractual employees. If the employees of that category completed ten years of service and fulfilled the criteria as laid down in the said memorandum dated 21.01.2009, they would be regularized. But the writ petitioner was a contractual employee and as such, he is not entitled to get the benefit out of the said memorandum dated 21.01.2009.

The said plea as raised by the appellant, has been discarded by learned single judge observing that the petitioner was engaged as the full-time typist on casual basis under the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Tripura w.e.f. 01.06.1988 and he has been discharging such duty almost continuously since then. The writ petitioner has relied on a letter dated 13.11.2008 issued by the Executive Engineer, Sonamura Division, PWD, Sonamura addressed to the Chief Engineer, PWD (R & B) stating 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 and performed his duties from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. since joining, but when his name was forwarded, his designation had been written as contract basis worker/P.T.W. due to typographical mistake.

Learned single judge has having considered those material facts found the petitioner eligible to be regularized and according to him, the respondents have acted arbitrarily by denying his regularization and accordingly, the said direction was issued by the judgment dated 17.01.2020.

Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that there is marked distinction between the term 'casual employee' and 'the contract basis worker'. Mr. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that the terms and condition of such employment would be governed and guided by terms of contract by which the employee is engaged. We have given a serious consideration to the said submission and find it difficult to persuade ourselves to accept the said interpretation of the word 'Casual' vis-à-vis 'Contractual'. Every engagement is guided by some contract of engagement whether it is Casual, DRW or Contingent worker. For example, the contract of the employment for the DRW is very clear that unless they work they will not be paid any wage. To denote the distinction between the 'Casual' and the 'Contingent' Workers require no further exercise. Mere variation or change in the nomenclature or term in respect of engagement, cannot deprive a person from getting the benefit of regularization, as provided by the said scheme, casual, contingent and DRW fall in the similar category. All can be generally described as casual employees. We clarify further that the policy of the state government is very categorical if the full-time employees of that category completed the tenure, the benefit of regularization be extended to him.

Hence, we do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the decision of learned single judge.

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.