Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Tripura · body

2025 DAILYLAW 560 (TRI)

Sri Litan Bardhan and another v. The State of Tripura and 3 others

WP(C)/114/2025 · 2025-04-24

T Amarnath Goud

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) 114 of 2025 Sri Litan Bardhan And Another ---Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura and 3 Ors. ---Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Sujata Deb (Gupta), Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. GA. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD Order 24.04.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. [2] This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the following relief(s): i. Admit this petition of the petitioner and call for records relevant to the subject matter from the custody of the respondents. ii. Issue Writ directing the Respondents and each of them to grant the financial benefits to the petitioner as per the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2021 from 05.07.2021 to August 2023. iii. Issue Writ directing the Respondents and each of them to grant the earn leave and medical leave since 05.07.2021 i.e. the date of Judgment and Order passed in WP(C) 211 of 2021 to August 2023 when the financial benefit were given. iv. Issue Writ directing the Respondents and each of them to grant the arrear of pay w.e.f. 05.07.2021 i.e. the date of Judgment and Order passed in WP(C) 211 of 2021 till 17.03.2023 when the financial benefit was given by the respondent by Memorandum dated 25.09.2023, vide No.F.10(748)-DHE/LA/2021/2696. v. Issue Writ Certiorari or in the nature thereof directing the Respondent No. 2 and each of them to quash/ modify the Memo 25.09.2023, 2021/2696. vide No.F.10(748)-DHE/LA/ AND vi. Pass such other or further order/orders and direction/directions as your Lordship deems fit and proper, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. [3] It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were engaged in the post of Watch and ward and sweeper as full time casual worker from 09.10.2003 and 01.01.2004. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 informed the respondent No. 2 that the petitioners and other similar persons like the petitioners are neither contractual workers nor honorary workers, but casual workers. The former issued a memorandum dated 29.03.2010 discontinuing the said services of the petitioners. Before the same came in effect, a subsequent corrigendum was issued on 31.03.2010 withdrawing the preceding memorandum. On 07.04.2010, respondent No. 2 communicated to the respondent No. 4 informing that such termination may be cancelled and the petitioners may be allowed to continue service. On 01.02.2012, the respondent No. 4 issued a letter to respondent No. 2 that the service of the petitioners are requested for the best interest of Tripura Institute of Technology (TIT). By communication dated 03.09.2012, the names of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons like the petitioners were suggested for regularization. On 07.01.2014, 10.02.2014 and 17.10.2014, the petitioners and similar others made communications to the respondent No. 2 for regularization of their respective services. The petitioners are fully covered by the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 and letter dated 15.01.2014 and therefore their claims for regularization of their services, can under no circumstances be denied. It is mentioned that the non-regularization of the petitioner, run contrary to the policy decision of the State Government. [4] Aggrieved by conduct of the respondents the petitioners have filed this writ petition. [5] On perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioners made a representation dated 08.07.2024 which has not been acted upon till date by the respondents. [6] In view of above submission, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the representation dated 08.07.2024 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Page 3 of 3 [7] With the above observation and direction, this present writ petition stands disposed of. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands closed. JUDGE Dipak DIPAK DAS Digitally signed by DIPAK DAS Date: 2025.04.28 10:58:12 +05'30'