HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA I.A No.1 of 2024 in WA No.111 of 2024 WA No.111 of 2024 1. The State of Tripura, to be represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin- 799006. 2. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin- 799010. 3. The Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Tripura. 4. The DM & Collector, South Tripura District, Belonia. ……… Applicant/Appellant(s). V E R S U S 1. Runu Majumder (Baidya), W/o Uttam Baidya, R/o Vill- Baraj Colony, P.O – Sarashima, P.S. Belonia, South Tripura, Pin-799155. 2. Juthika Chakraborty, W/o Bimal Chakraborty, D/o Rash Behari Chakraborty, R/o Vill- Sarasima, Boroj Colony, South Tripura, Pin- 799155. 3. Rajib Nath, S/o Satyajit Nath, R/o Vill and P.O. Bijoynagar, P.S. Sabroom, South Tripura, Pin-799145. ……… Respondent(s). For Applicant/Appellant (s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. PURKAYASTHA Order 06/05/2025 I.A No.1 of 2024 Heard Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the applicants/appellants and also heard Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the prayer for condonation of delay of 32 days in preferring the instant writ appeal No.111/2024. Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the applicants/appellants submits that the delay is not intentional and it has been properly explained. Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the respondents do not have serious objection to the prayer. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on being satisfied with the explanation urged, this Court is inclined to condone the delay in the interest of justice. Accordingly, delay is condoned. IA stands disposed of. WA No.111 of 2024 The instant writ appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2024 passed in WP(C) No.384 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court which reads as under: “Heard Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the State-respondents. The fact of the case is that the petitioners were appointed in the month of December, 2012 as contractual workers under the respondents. While they were discharging their duties as contractual workers, the respondents under order dated 29.06.2015(Annexure-2 to the writ petition) had given an ex post facto approval treating the petitioners as Daily Rated Workers w.e.f. the dates of their joining. From the said Memo dated 29.06.2015, it appears that the petitioners had joined to their respective services on 01.12.2012. A proposal has been initiated by the District and Collector, South Tripura, Belonia in the year 2022(21.02.2022) to regularise the services of eight numbers of Daily Rated Workers including the petitioners. But till now, their services have not been regularised. Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the services of all the Daily Rated Workers whose names appeared in the communication dated 21.02.2022 have been regularised, but the services of the petitioners appearing at serial nos.6, 7 and 8 have not been regularised most illegally and arbitrarily. Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel has strenuously argued that it is a clear case of discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A for the State-respondents submits that the policy for regularisation of DRWs has been repealed in the year 2018. At present, no policy for regularisation of Daily Rated workers exists and in view of this, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is settled proposition of law that regularisation is not a matter of right but a right to be considered. However, it is found in the instant case that the respondent no.4, DM & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia has considered regularisation of Sri Abhijit Das, Sri Kamal Deb, Sri Rajib Debnath, Sri Bimalendu Tripura and Sri Asis Debnath as per the direction of the Court. If same principle is applied, then, regularization of the services of the petitioners also may be considered. In the communication dated 21.02.2022, it is stated that “Among the 8(eight) nos. DRWs, Sl. No.1 to 5 have already been completed their 10(Ten) years of DRW period”. So, it is evident that though there is no policy for regularisation of DRWs, at this moment, but the DM and Collector, South Tripura, Belonia while regularizing the above 5(five) names under communication dated 21.02.2022 has considered that they completed 10(ten) years of service as DRW. In view of this, I direct the respondents, particularly the DM & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia to consider the regularisation of the services of the petitioners since they have already completed 10(ten) years of service. The process shall be completed within 3(three) months from today. With the above observation and direction, the instant petition stands allowed and disposed.” The learned writ Court has only directed the respondents, particularly the DM & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia, to consider the regularization of the services of the writ petitioners since they have already completed 10(ten) years of service. The process should be completed within a period of three months. The learned writ Court has also referred to the fact that there is no policy of regularization of DRWs but certain DRWs who had completed ten years of engagement were regularized. The learned writ Court has not rendered any finding on merits whether the writ petitioners case is fit to be regularized. The matter has been left to the DM & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia to take a decision. Page 4 of 4 Therefore, we are of the view that there is no justifiable reason for the appellant-State to prefer this appeal. If the decision favours the writ petitioners, then only the consequential benefits would accrue. If the decision is adverse to the writ petitioners, they may have an opportunity to assail it in a fresh proceeding. Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the writ Court has only directed the DM & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia to consider the regularization of the services of the writ petitioners within a time bound manner. No specific directions have been issued for their regularization. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. However, learned counsel for the appellants-State submits that the time period of three months for taking such decision has expired by now, since appellant-State was pursuing this appeal. As such, the time period of three months for taking decision in the matter by the DM & Collector, South Tripura, Belonia/the competent authority shall be counted from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the instant writ appeal [WA No.111 of 2024] is also disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (S. D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ Munna S MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA Date: 2025.05.07 16:03:01 +05'30'