UTTAM BISWAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondent and Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for respondents-Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.

(2.) This is a case for regularization of the service of the petitioner in the post of Group-D. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as 'Meter Reader' under the State Electricity Department on recommendation of the Block Development Officer, Sadar, North Block, Mohanpur vide order dated 14th July, 2003. The petitioner joined his service on 21st July, 2003. The plea of the petitioner is that, in terms of the memorandum dated 21.01.2009, issued by the Government of Tripura, Department of Finance, the petitioner became eligible for regularization against the post of Group-D, since, he completed 10 years of service as Daily Rated Worker. The Deputy General Manager, Mohanpur Electrical Division submitted a list of Daily Rated Workers/Part Time Workers under the Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited addressed to the Addl. General Manager, Electrical Circle No. IV, Agartala, Tripura, West along with their salary statements. In the said list, the name of the petitioner appeared and his status/designation was shown as Daily Rated Worker performing duty for eight hours. The said list also mentioned the date of his engagement as on 21.07.2003 and his wage was fixed at Rs.4,434.00/-. In the said, list at column No.13, it shows that the service of the petitioner as Daily Rated Worker had financial concurrence under reference No.10(22)/FIN/G/DWR.

(3.) The petitioner submitted representation. The said representation was regretted by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura. As per the direction of this Court, a committee was constituted by the Government to examine and verify the records of such Daily Rated Workers and it was directed that on such consideration, the respondents would consider the regularization of eligible DRW/Casual/Contingent workers. The committee submitted its report and on consideration of the report, the State-respondents found that the petitioner was not eligible for regularization. The ground of such rejection as averred in the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents-TSECL and the State-respondent is that the petitioner was irregularly engaged by the Block Development Officer. The Director, Finance, TSECL, Agartala informed the petitioner vide letter dated 05.08.2019 stating that 'Finance Department regrets the proposal of TSECL'.