SUBHASH ROY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having noticed the common question that wades through both the writ petitions being WP(C)No.536 of 2021 [Subhash Roy v. State of Tripura and 3 Ors.] and WP(C)537 of 2021 [Jagabandhu Debnath v. State of Tripura and 3 Ors.] those are combined for disposal by a common judgment.

(2.) The writ petitioners have urged for Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize their service for their completion of ten years of service by interfering with the decision of the Finance Department contained in the communication dtd. 2/8/2021 [Annexure-5 to the writ petitions]. There is hardly any difference in facts. Both the petitioners did join as DRW Orderly in the Legal Remembrancer's establishment on 20/12/2007. Thereafter, they have been uninterruptedly serving the respondents.

(3.) On 2/8/2021 by filing a representation [Annexure-4 to the writ petitions] the petitioners had urged for their regularization against the vacant posts of Orderly. It is apparent that on 19/2/2017 they had completed ten years of service. While scrutinizing the records, it is noticed that the Law Department, Government of Tripura took steps for their regularization and for that purpose, they had referred the matter for concurrence of the Finance Department, as is evident from the communication dtd. 2/8/2021 [Annexure-5 to the writ petitions]. But by the impugned order the Finance Department has regretted the concurrence. Even from the Note No.126, the Finance Department's view on the proposal of the Law Department can be gathered [see Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents].