Uttam Debnath vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

[1] Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacahrjee, learned G.A. appearing for the State-respondent and Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-TSECL.

[2] By means of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for regularization claiming that he has completed 10 years of service as Daily Rated Worker [DRW, for short] and on completion of 10 years of such service, he is entitled to be regularized with regular scale of pay as as 'Group-D'.

[3] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon some documents, particularly, the wage bills. From the wage bills it reveals that since 2007 the petitioner was paid the equal pay as those of the other DRWs though, his engagement under the State-respondents, the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited [TSECL, for short] was as Part Time Worker [PTW, for short] having stipulated duty for 4 hours. On the strength of these documents, Mr. Barman, learned senior counsel has urged before this Court to pass a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents particularly, the respondent-TSECL to treat his engagement as DRW w.e.f. 2007, which means, in the year 2017 he has completed his 10 years of service as DRW entitling his regularisation in the post he was holding.

[4] On the other hand, Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TSECL has submitted that the petitioner has forged his engagement letter. In the copy of the engagement letter, he erased the duty hours i.e. 4 hours and also erased the word 'PTW' and in its place, the word 'DRW' has been written.

[5] On the previous date, this Court had directed Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner to ask the petitioner to appear before the Court with his original engagement letter, but, today itself, the petitioner though appeared before this Court but not with the original copy of the engagement letter. From the photocopy it transpires that "4 hours" duty has been erased and the designation as 'PTW', has been interpolated as 'DRW'. The copy, which has been produced before the Court by the petitioner itself reveals that it is manipulated and manifests overwriting.

[6] I have perused the original records as produced by the department concerned i.e. TSECL wherefrom it clearly emanates that the petitioner was initially appointed as 'PTW' vide order dated 17.12.1997 and his duty hours was fixed for '4 hours'. The above fact clearly establishes that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands for which he should be penalized as he has made a valiant attempt to mislead the Court. But, I refrain myself from taking any punitive action against him considering the fact that he is a poor paid worker. However, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost for his wrongful acts and commission itself.

[7] Now, coming to the merits of the case, it has been clearly established that the petitioner was engaged vide engagement letter dated 17.12.1997. As per policy, the service of PTW has to be upgraded to the post of DRW after completion of 7 years of service. However, his service was not upgraded. The petitioner submitted representations, but, his service was not upgraded and he did not approach before the Court in time. Further, it reveals that from 2007, though, his service as PTW was not upgraded, but, he was allowed to enjoy the wage equal to the wage of DRW and vide Finance Department memorandum dated 07.12.2012 the petitioner has been designated as DRW.

[8] Since the petitioner has been designated as DRW as and from 07.12.2012, he has not completed 10 years of service as DRW till today. The petitioner has filed the writ petition in the year 2019. As such, in my opinion, the instant writ petition is premature.

[9] As I said earlier, that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost and considering the emanated facts hereinabove, I find no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. The copies of the office order dated 17.12.1997 as produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondent-TSECL, may be a part of this record with my signatures thereon. Other records of TSECL are returned to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondent-TSECL.

[10] Viewed thus, the instant petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.