State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Subrata Singha And Anr.

[1] These appeals are filed by the State Government to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10th January 2020, in case of Uttam Malakar and others Vs. State of Tripura in WP(C) No.258/2018 and other connected petitions.

[2] The original petitioners were engaged by Tripura Forest Development and Plantation Corporation Limited (to be referred to as the "said Corporation") since 2003-04.

[3] They had filed the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge and sought regularization of their services upon completion of 10 years of service. They had placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in case of Ranjit Malakar Vs. State of Tripura and Ors. in WP(C) No.290/2017 and in case of Aparna Das Vs. State of Tripura and Ors. in WP(C) No.237/2018. The learned Single Judge found that the facts were identical and, therefore, issued appropriate directions. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under :

"10. Having observed thus, the respondents are directed to regularise the service of the petitioners from the next day of their completion of ten years of service in the post of Peon/Driver having regard to their status as Contingent Worker or DRW within a period of three months from the date when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order. The pay and allowances be accordingly determined. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."

[4] At the outset, we have inquired with the learned Government Advocate as to what happen to the decision of Single Judge in case of Ranjit Malakar and Aparna Das. After making detailed inquiry he stated before us that neither of these judgments has been challenged by the Corporation or the Government. It would thus emerge that the decisions in case of Ranjit Malakar and Aparna Das were accepted by the authorities and implemented without challenge. In our opinion, as long as the facts of these petitioners are common, the State cannot select their cases for challenge while deciding to accept the judgment in case of identically situated employee.

[5] It seems undisputed that the cases of petitioners were similar to those of Ranjit Malakar and Aparna Das. This was also discussed and recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned judgment as under :

"6. There is no controversy in respect of the status of the petitioner either as DRW or as the Contingent Worker (MR worker) and in respect of their completion of ten years of service on diverse dates as reflected in the communication dated 31.03.2015. So far the petitioner in WP(C) No.258 of 2018 namely Uttam Malakar is concerned he had completed ten years of service on 31.08.2015 [see para-5 of the writ petition] or subject to the verification of the records. It is to be noted that during the course of the submission a certificate dated 11.09.2019 issued by the General Manager, Tripura Forest Development and Plantation Corporation Limited has been submitted before this court showing that the said petitioner has been working as DRW(Driver).

There cannot be any amount of confusion that all these writ petitions are substantially covered by the judgments as delivered in Ranjit Malakar(supra) and Aparna Das(supra). It has been noticed by this court that the respondent No.5 has clearly stated in the communication dated 31.03.2015 that total 17 vacancies are available in the various categories against which the petitioners can be regularised."

[6] In case of Ranjit Malakar, learned Single Judge had discussed the issue at length and thereafter given following directions :

"13. The regularisation rules, therefore, be given a pragmatic interpretation and if they have completed ten years of service and the regularisation scheme was still alive [see the circular dated 03.01.2014 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition], the petitioner shall be given the benefit of regularisation as she had completed ten years of service on 01.09.2013, but that was no so done. In the case of Ranjit Malakar(supra) he had completed his ten years of service on 22.07.2014. Considering that the regularisation scheme was alive on the day of his completing ten years of service, this court had directed the respondents to regularise him from the next date when he had completed ten years of service in the same grade where he had been working as DRW/MR Worker. The respondents were further directed that he shall be considered within a period of three months from the date when he shall submit a copy of the order. As stated earlier, the respondents have complied this order with all earnestness. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to the similar benefit.

Hence, the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner from the next day of her completion of ten years of service i.e. 02.09.2013 in the post of Peon and the order in this regard shall be issued within a period of three months from the date when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order. The pay and allowances be accordingly determined."

[7] This decision in case of Ranjit Malakar was followed in later decision in case of Aparna Das. As noted, both the decisions were accepted by the authorities. The learned Single Judge has thereafter applied the said decisions to the present petitioners who were similarly situated, we would not permit the Government to challenge the decision on selective basis.

In the result, appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.