P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Smti. Vaswati Sharma vs The State Of Tripura - (High Court of Tripura) (13 May 2021)

Claim of regularization can be made only within the four corners of a scheme

MANU/TR/0286/2021

Service

The Petitioner has prayed for regularizing her in service w.e.f. 14th February, 2002, i.e. on completion of 10 years of service with all consequential benefits. The Petitioner was appointed as temporary fixed pay worker (clerical) under an order dated 15th February, 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.

After the Government of Tripura framed the policy of regularization of DRW, Casual and Contingent Workers under office memorandum dated 1st September,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 14th December, 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 31st March, 2003 on full-time basis and have completed 10 years of service as on 1st July, 2012.

As per the office memorandum, the eligibility criteria was that the DRW, Casual or Contingent Workers should have been engaged prior to 31st March, 2003 and should have completed 10 years full-time work on 1st July, 2012. The cut-off date of 31st March, 2008 as envisaged in office memorandum dated 1st September, 2008, for the workers of Municipal Council and Panchayats was shifted to 1st July, 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 20th December, 2012. The Petitioner cannot seek the benefit of regularization from any date anterior to the date of order of regularization.

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. 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. The petition is dismissed.

Tags : REGULARIZATION   ELIGIBILITY   RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved