Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi DECISION
Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, C.J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for regularizing her in service w.e.f. 14.02.2002, i.e. on completion of 10 years of service with all consequential benefits. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the expectation of the petitioner is for being granted regularization w.e.f. 01.07.2008 as provided in office memorandum dated 01.09.2008 issued by the State Government.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as temporary fixed pay worker (clerical) under an order dated 15.02.1992 by the Notified Area Authority, Dharmanagar. This Notified Area Authority was later on upgraded as Dharmanagar Nagar Panchayat and thereafter to the status of Dharmanagar Municipal Council. All the employees of the Notified Area Authority automatically became the employees of Dharmanagar Municipal Council.
3. The petitioner would point out that the Government of Tripura framed a scheme for regularization of DRW, Casual and Contingent Workers upon completion of 10 years of service under office memorandum dated 01.09.2008. This office memorandum provided that the Government had taken a decision to regularize services of full-time DRW, Casual and Contingent Workers who had completed 10 years as on 31.03.2008 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The eligible workers would be provided pay scale in the relevant grade upon their regularization which would take effect from 01.07.2008. Under a communication dated 30.10.2009 the Director of Urban Development, Government of Tripura to Chief Executive Officer/Executive Officers of various Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats requested that the proposal for regularization of services of DRW, Casual and Contingent Workers on completion of 10 years of service as on 31.03.2008 be sent to the Finance Department for concurrence. From this communication counsel for the petitioner contends that the regularization scheme framed by the Government under office memorandum dated 01.09.2008 was made applicable to the employees of Nagar Panchayat also.
4. Counsel also pointed out that pursuant to such policy decisions of the State Government the Nagar Panchayats including Dharmanagar Nagar Panchayat had initiated steps for regularization of temporary staff who fulfilled the conditions of regularization. Under an office memorandum dated 14.12.2012 the Finance Department, Government of Tripura granted its concurrence for regularization of temporary workers. Accordingly, the petitioner was regularized by an order dated 20.12.2012 with effect from the said date. The grievance of the petitioner is that such regularization was granted prospectively from the date of the order instead of regularizing her services w.e.f. 01.07.2008 as provided in office memorandum dated 01.09.2008.
5. The petitioner has also relied on the regularization granted to respondent No. 6 Sri Subhrangshu Paul with retrospective effect. According to the petitioner respondent No. 6 was engaged by the Nagar Panchayat after the entry into service of the petitioner. He was thus junior to her. He was granted the benefit of retrospective regularization which was denied to the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, case of the official respondents is that regularization of daily rated or contingent staff was subject to concurrence of the Finance Department which was granted only in the year 2012. The regularization, therefore, cannot be granted with retrospective effect. With respect to respondent No. 6 it is the stand of the official respondents that he was recruited after a regular selection process but was placed in fixed salary keeping the vacancy in abeyance for a period of 5 years as per the Government policy. Upon completion of the period of 5 years after engagement he was brought over to regular scale. The case of the petitioner, therefore, is not comparable to that of respondent No. 6.
7. Respondent No. 6 has also filed an affidavit and produced certain documents to demonstrate that he was selected on a regular vacancy after due selection process.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, what emerges is that after the Government of Tripura framed the policy of regularization of DRW, Casual and Contingent Workers under office memorandum dated 01.09.2008, all Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats were asked to provide details of such workers who fulfilled the eligibility criteria for regularization. After collecting such data across the State from such Corporations and Panchayats the Finance Department granted sanction for regularization of eligible workers under order dated 14.12.2012. Such regularization would be granted subject to fulfillment of certain criteria laid down in the said office memorandum, one of them being such DRW, Casual Workers etc. were engaged on or before 31.03.2003 on full-time basis and have completed 10 years of service as on 01.07.2012. This office memorandum also provided that subject to fulfillment of these conditions the eligible workers would be provided pay scale in relevant grade in the lowest grade of Group-C or D at entry level pay scale "from the prospective date of their joining in the regular scale post".
9. Two things become clear from this office memorandum. Firstly, that the eligibility criteria was that the DRW, Casual or Contingent Workers should have been engaged prior to 31.03.2003 and should have completed 10 years full-time work on 01.07.2012. The cut-off date of 31.03.2008 as envisaged in office memorandum dated 01.09.2008, for the workers of Municipal Council and Panchayats was shifted to 01.07.2012. Further, the eligible workers would be provided the pay scale in the entry level scale from prospective date of joining the regular scale post. This office memorandum thus did not envisage granting regularization from retrospective effect. It was pursuant to this office memorandum that the petitioner's services were regularized under order dated 20.12.2012. The petitioner cannot seek the benefit of regularization from any date anterior to the date of order of regularization.
10. For an irregularly engaged worker to seek regularization in service, there has to be some basis in the nature of scheme framed by the Government. The claim of regularization can be made only within the four corners of such a scheme. When comes the question of regularizing the workers of Municipal Council and Panchayats, concurrence of the Finance Department will be necessary since it is this department which is responsible for maintaining fiscal discipline within such organizations. The ability of Municipal Council and Panchayats to pay regular scales to temporary staff irrespective of existence of vacancies, will be a relevant consideration.
11. The case of the respondent No. 6 was wholly different. In the affidavit that the said respondent has filed, he has pointed out that the Nagar Panchayat had issued an advertisement dated 11.12.2004 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to several non-gazetted posts under Dharmanagar Nagar Panchayat, one of them being of Computer Clerk. The respondent No. 6 applied in response to the said post, was called for and interviewed by the Staff Selection Board on 22.07.2005. It was thereupon that he was appointed as a Computer Clerk by the Nagar Panchayat by an order dated 11.12.2006 initially in a fixed pay of Rs. 2145/-. Subsequently, the Government of Tripura granted ex post facto sanction for creation of one post of Lower Division Clerk under Dharmanagar Municipal Council by an order dated 01.12.2017 w.e.f. 11.12.2006. It was, therefore, that upon completion of 5 years of service from initial engagement he was brought on to regular scale w.e.f. 11.12.2011. He has also pointed out that the case of the petitioner is vastly different since she was engaged without any selection process or interview.
12. It can thus be seen that the case of the petitioner is not comparable to that of respondent No. 6. Neither the petitioner has made out any case independently for being granted regularization with retrospective effect.
13. The petition is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.