BIMAL SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a Daily Rated Worker ('DRW') has filed this writ petition seeking, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise his service as Group D employee in view of the policy decision of the respondents in its memorandum dated 22.2.2007 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition).

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Choudhry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B. Datta, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) THE respondents by way of filing their counter affidavit denied the allegations of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner was working as a part -time worker (sweeper) since 1987 and he applied for the first time in the year 2006 for correction of his designation on the basis of some hand receipts (wage slips). The respondents in their counter affidavit tried to brush aside the contentions of the petitioner's eligibility to be considered for regularisation as per the Government policy, inter alia, that the petitioner was never engaged as a full time DRW rather he was engaged as a part -time worker (sweeper) on contract basis and that being so, he is not covered by the policy of the Government particularly the policy of the Finance Department as enumerated in memorandum dated 2.2.2007, as the said memorandum is applicable only for the persons who are engaged as full -time DRWs/casual workers/fixed pay employees. It is further stated in the counter that after collection of all particulars, the PWD prepared a consolidated list of all DRW/casual workers/part -time workers, etc., and sent the same to the Finance Department for record and accordingly, the Finance Department prepared a consolidated list and circulated the same to all treasury/sub -treasury offices and DDOs for preparation of their wage bills as per approved list, wherein the name of the petitioner has been shown as part -time worker (fixed) as per division list. The further case of the respondents is that the petitioner was engaged as part -time worker for sweeping work with effect from 2.6.1987 and the payment of his wages was made through hand receipt @ Rs. 8.46 per day and in the different wage bill statements of the various Division Offices the petitioner's name has been shown as sweeper/casual worker/casual, labourer/contract basis (fixed). But the authority after scrutiny of all documents and papers decided the petitioner as a part -time worker as per wage slip from 1992 to 2004. The respondents also stated in their counter affidavit that the department processed the name of the petitioner to the Finance Department for approval as fixed pay worker instead of part -time worker but the Finance/Department has approved his name as part -time worker and that being so the answering respondents considered the petitioner as a part -time worker and his service was not regularised.