RANJIT CHOWHAN Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to regularise him in service as per office memorandum dated 1st September, 2008. The petitioner has further prayed that he be paid salary for the period between February 2004 to 31st August, 2010 during which period he had discharged duties.

(2.) The chequered history of the case can be briefly stated as under :

(3.) The Government of Tripura issued an office memorandum dated 1st September, 2008 under which scheme for regularization of Daily Rated Workers(DRW), Contingent and Casual Workers who had completed 10(ten) years of service was framed. The petitioner relied on the said office memorandum and in terms of the observations made by the Division Bench(judgment dated 2nd August, 2010) made a representation. The authorities did not consider such request upon which the petitioner filed WP(C) No.224/2011. This petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 28th June, 2011. In the meantime, the petitioner had crossed the age of superannuation and, therefore, retired w.e.f 31st October, 2010. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition, asked the petitioner to make a fresh representation for regularization and also the offer payment of his admissible dues. The petitioner made such a representation on 12th December, 2011 in which he requested for regularization in service from 1st April, 2008. The petitioner also pointed out that he had not been paid any salary for the period between February 2004 to 31st October, 2008. This representation was disposed of by a memorandum dated 7th May, 2012 in which the Director of School Education observed that the case of the petitioner for regularization does not fall under any of the existing schemes of the Government and such request was, therefore, rejected. The petitioner, therefore, once again approached the High Court by filing WP(C) No.307/2012 which was disposed of by a judgment dated 29th May, 2013. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the Director of School Education while rejecting the petitioner's request for regularization had not cited any reasons. Petitioner's request for payment of salary from February 2004 to August 2010 was also not considered. The Director of School Education was, therefore, asked to reconsider the representation of the petitioner within 2(two) months from the date of the order.