Swaraj Ghosh vs State Of Tripura And Others

[1] I have heard learned counsel Shri Kawsik Nath appearing for the petitioner and Shri Dipankar Sharma learned counsel appearing for the Government. Though served, no one has appeared for Tripura State Social Welfare Board.

[2] The petitioner seeks regularization of the service with the Board in mere following facts.

The petitioner was engaged as a daily rated worker by the Board with effect from 15.12.1997. He continued to work in the said capacity for years together. In the year 2008 Government issued a memorandum on 01.09.2008 which contained a scheme for regularization of DRWs, Casual and Contingent workers on completion of 10 years of service. The salient features of the scheme were that all such fulltime DRWs, Casual and Contingent workers who are completed 10 years of service as on 31.03.2008 would be regularized from the said date subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, such as, the concerned workers fulfill all the conditions of recruitment except age and in case of Group-D employees educational qualifications, both of which would be deemed to have been relaxed. However, for Group-C post aspirants the educational qualifications must be met with.

[3] The Board has accepted the said Government scheme for its workers. It has also been so clarified in an affidavit dated 14.05.2020 filed by the Board pursuant to the Court's order. In fact, the Board had taken up the case of the petitioner with the Government for his regularization. For this purpose a letter was written by the Director of the Board on 22.09.2012 to the Joint Secretary of Government of Tripura along with which he had sent the particulars of four workers engaged by the Board as DRWs or Contingent or Casual workers. This list contained the name of the petitioner and it was stated that he has been engaged as a DRW in Group- D post since 15.12.1997. It also stated that the Finance Department had issued the concurrence for his engagement on 25.01.2010.

[4] On 09.11.2017 Under Secretary of Finance Department wrote to the Secretary, Tripura State Welfare Board conveying that the Finance Department had concurred to the proposal of the Board for regularization of the service of the petitioner on completion of 10 years of continuous service subject to certain conditions, namely, the approval of the Council of Ministers would be obtained for one time relaxation of age and educational qualifications and that before regularization the department should verify the relevant documents.

[5] On 04.01.2018 the Secretary, Tripura State Social Welfare Board wrote to the Director of Social Welfare and Social Education, Government of Tripura and pointed out that the petitioner had competed 10 years of service as a DRW (Group-D) but he had crossed the upper age limit for regular service. Age relaxation in his case, therefore, would be needed.

[6] Without any final decision on the case of the petitioner the matter remained pending with the Government and in the meantime, I am informed, that the Government has dismantled the policy of regularization. That could be one of the reasons why in case of the petitioner no final decision was taken by the authorities. At that stage, the petitioner has approached this Court.

[7] The record would thus show that even as per the Board the petitioner was engaged as a DRW on 15.12.1997 and continued to be so engaged year after year. The Board also agrees that the Government scheme for regularization famed under memorandum dated 01.09.2008 is applicable to the workers of the Board. As per this regularization scheme, a DRW, Casual or a Contingent worker on full time engagement subject to fulfillment of certain conditions would be regularized upon completion of 10 years of service with effect from 31.03.2008. With respect to age and educational qualifications it was provided that the age requirement shall be deemed to have been relaxed and for Group-D employees the educational qualifications also would be relaxed.

[8] It was on the basis of such rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time that the Board had taken up the case of the petitioner for his regularization in service with the Government. The Finance Department had also showed its concurrence for such purpose. However, for no apparent reasons this exercise did not result into any final decision.

[9] The petitioner's request for regularization must succeed. This is for the following reasons :

It is not the stand of the respondents that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the regularization scheme dated 01.09.2008. He had completed 10 years of service when the scheme was famed and published. He had the educational qualifications of Class-VIII pass and this objection of his not having the educational qualifications prescribed for the post in question was therefore later on dropped by the Board. The sole surviving objection of the respondents therefore appears to be the petitioner having crossed the upper age limit. This objection also cannot sustain. Firstly, the scheme itself, as noted, has provided for automatic relaxation of age. Secondly, as on 31.03.2008 i.e. the date with effect from which a DRW who has already completed 10 years of service, would be regularized, the petitioner had not crossed the upper age limit. If his case was considered soon after the scheme was published, there would be no question of his crossing the upper age. Further, even if the respondents have caused delay in considering the case of the petitioner for regularization, such consideration must be as on the date when his right to seek consideration for regularization arose. The delay on part of the administration to complete such procedure cannot have the effect of delaying the relevant date from which the regularization would have to be considered. Seen from this angle, the petitioner's crossing the upper age limit prescribed for the post in question at a later point of time, cannot destroy his chances of regularization as per the scheme since as on the relevant date he was well within the age limit. Subsequent withdrawal of the scheme also cannot deprive the legitimate claims of an employee arising of the government scheme.

[10] Under the circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the regularization scheme framed by the Government under memorandum dated 01.09.2008 without referring to his age or educational qualifications. Such regularization shall be from the due date i.e. upon his completion of 10 years of engagement or 31.03.2008 whichever is later, however, his pay fixation for the period between the date of regularization and till the date of filing of the petition would be for notional purposes. Actual benefit shall be granted from the date of filing of the petition. These directions shall be carried out within a period of four months from today.

[11] Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.