RUSHAN ALI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Debajit Biswas, learned counsel along with Ms Shibama Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. H Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The facts are mostly undisputed. The petitioner was engaged as the Group-D employee on contract basis in the residential office of the Minister of Panchayat by the order dtd. 7/10/1999 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition]. Thereafter, by the order dtd. 10/11/2004 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition], the service of the petitioner along with others were placed under the disposal of the Director/Head of Department. This order has its own relevance as it has revealed that the government had taken a decision for placement of the Daily Rated Workers (DRWs) working in the residence of the demitted ministers in the office. Though the word, "on contract basis" has been used, denoting the nature of employment, in the order dtd. 7/10/1999, the petitioner has been discharging duties as Daily Rated Worker (DRW). On perusal of the said order dtd. 10/11/2004, it further appears that the reference of the petitioner's engagement has been made in the context of their duties being utilised by the Director, Panchayat Department on 22/9/1999.

(3.) From another order dtd. 9/12/2004 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition], it would further appear that the petitioner was being paid Rs.1,900.00 per month from the Directorate of Panchayat. It would further evince from the order dtd. 20/12/2004 that the petitioner was transferred to Kadamtala RD Block, North Tripura and accordingly, he joined in the said place of posting.