KAJI MUSLIM MIAH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed as the Daily Rated Worker [DRW] under the Department of Agriculture on 08.12.1988 on fulltime basis. On 29.11.2007, the Director of Agriculture published a list of DRW and Casual Labourers who had been engaged as the Permanent Labourer by the order dated 10.09.2007 w.e.f 01.01.2007. Even in the said list, the petitioner was shown as the Permanent Labourers at serial No.515 under the Superintendent of Agriculture, Sonamura but on the seniority list of Permanent Labourers, published on 31.03.2012, his name was found missing. The petitioner submitted a letter of objection on 16.09.2012 to the Director of Agriculture through the proper channel. The said list was modified and his name appeared at serial No.9 with his designation as Permanent Labourer. But by the memorandum dated 15.10.2014 the petitioner was shown to be the Permanent Labourer w.e.f. 01.10.2014, not from 10.09.2007. The petitioner had challenged that action of the respondents by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.02 of 2015. While disposing the said writ petition, this court, by the judgment and order dated 13.07.2016, had occasion to observe that 'the petitioner shall not be deprived of the service that he has rendered from 08.12.1988 and accordingly, the order dated 10.10.2008, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the memorandum dated 15.10.2014, Annexure-16 to the writ petition, the memorandum dated 22.05.2014, Annexure-14 to the writ petition, and the corrigendum dated 13.06.2015, Annexure-15 to the writ petition, are interfered with, for a limited purpose that the petitioner's status as the DRW shall be counted from 08.12.1988 and his status as PL shall be treated from 29.11.2007 when the memorandum dated 29.11.2007, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, was issued, but the petitioner will not get further financial benefit of PL till 15.10.2014. The petitioner would only get the continuity of the status which had been, by effect, taken away by the respondents by the impugned memoranda. It is made clear that the petitioner would get the seniority in terms of declaration as PL by the memorandum dated 29.11.2007, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The consequential benefits shall be restricted to regularization. At the same time, the GPF account opened in the name of the petitioner as PL shall not be disturbed. It shall be allowed to be operated in the name of the petitioner as PL. That apart, if any financial benefit has been received by the petitioner, that shall be recovered.'

(3.) Now, the petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition urging to direct the respondents to treat him as the Farm Worker from the date of joining of his juniors in terms of the notification under No.F.2(162)-Agri/(Estt.)/2007-08/Part-II/2648-54 dated 28.02.2015. The petitioner has urged this court to give him the financial benefit w.e.f. 12.08.2014.