PRADIP KUMAR DEY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-TSECL as well as Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. and Mr. H. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioner was engaged as a contingent worker on 5/1/2000 under the respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that the State-Government had formulated a scheme vide memorandum dtd. 9/6/2009 for regularization of all casual/contingent/DRWs workers working under the State-Government. It is the admitted position that Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) has adopted the said scheme for regularization of all contingent/casual/DRWs workers engaged and working under it.

(3.) One of the provisions of the scheme, is that, in the case of contingent workers, who had completed 10(ten) years of service as on 31/3/2008, shall be eligible for regularisation as Group-D employees. The petitioner had received an offer of appointment dtd. 27/12/2010, issued by the General Manager (Corporate) TSECL. On 2/4/2011, an offer of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner regularising his service with prospective effect i.e. from the date of joining. Thus, the respondents snatched away the right to get retrospective effect of regularisation as stipulated vide memorandum dtd. 9/6/2009. It is also contemplated in the said memorandum for regularisation that the workers who had not completed 10 years of service as on 31/3/2008, but, otherwise deserved to be regularized, their cases would be considered upon completion of 10 years of service. The petitioner has completed 10 years of service as a contingent worker on 4/1/2010. Petitioner's name is included at Serial No.85 in the list published by the Finance Department declaring the names of contingent workers eligible for regularisation. According to the list, the service of the petitioner ought to have been regularized since the petitioner was engaged as a contingent worker before 31/3/2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the service of the similarly situated workers, who were even juniors to the petitioner were regularized, but the petitioner was deprived of the same benefit inspite of his eligibility for regularisation as stated above.