JYOTSNA DAS Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the petitioner and learned State counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for the State respondents.

(2.) THE writ petition is taken up for disposal at the order stage itself with the consent of learned counsel of both side.

(3.) IT is contended by the petitioner that the State Government took a conscious decision to regularize all DRW/Contingent/Fixed Pay Workers working for 17 years in various departments and since she was also working for more than 17 years as a Daily Rated Worker she was also eligible to be regularized as per that Finance Department Memo dated 23.11.2005 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition). It is also contended by the petitioner that pursuant to that Memo dated 23.11.2005, some of the Daily Rated Workers mentioned in Sl. Nos. 4, 5, 8, 12 and 15 of the seniority list (Annexure -2 to the writ petition) were duly regularized but she has been discriminated and was not regularized with her other colleagues of the same seniority list. It is alleged by the petitioner that pursuant thereto by an order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure -4 to the writ petition) she and some other Daily Rated Workers/Casual Workers of the same Department were declared as Permanent Labour and the petitioner challenged that Memo alleging that she cannot be termed as Permanent Labour after 23 years of service as a Daily Rated Worker and thereby her right to be regularized pursuant to Memo dated 23.11.2005 was curtailed. She alleged that she has been unfairly treated and has been discriminated and prayed for directing the respondents to regularize her service as per Memo dated 23.11.2005.