Facts of the case
The Petitioner was appointed as a temporary fixed pay worker (clerical) on 15.02.1992 by the Notified Area Authority, Dharmanagar. Later it was upgraded to Dharmanager Municipal Council. On 31.03.2008, The government of Tripura issued an office memorandum providing a decision to regularise services of full-time DRW, Casual and Contingent works on completion of 10 years as of 31.03.2008. Subject to certain conditions. On 30.10.2009 the government of Tripura presented the proposal to the finance department of Tripura for assent. The finance department through an order dated 20.12.2012 granted the assent to the proposal with effect from the said date. The Petitioner filed the petition with the grievance that her regularization was granted prospectively and not from 01.07.2008 as provided in the office memorandum dated 01.09.2008.
Learned Counsel representing the Petitioner argued that the office memorandum dated 01.09.2008 was made applicable to the employees of Nagar Panchayat. On 01.07.2008, The Petitioner completed her 10 years of service. The Petitioner also mentioned the fact that Respondent no.6 was also granted the regularization with retrospective effect. Respondent no.6 was junior to the Petitioner.
Learned Counsel representing the Respondent mentioned the fact that the regularisation of DRW, casual and contingent workers was subject to the assent of the finance department which was granted in the year 2012. The regularization cannot be granted with retrospective effect. Respondent no. 6 argued that he was recruited after a selection process for a vacant post with a fixed salary. As per government policy, after 5 years, he was brought over to a regular scale. Respondent no. 6 also disclosed the documents of recruitment.
The court observed that the regularisation of eligible workers under the order dated 14.12.2012 was subject to certain criteria. The eligible workers should be engaged on or before 31.03.2012 on a full-time basis and have completed 10 years of service as of 01.07.2012. The office memorandum did not include the fact of retrospective effect. So, the Petitioner cannot seek the benefit from a retrospective date. In this case of respondent no. 6, It was found, as per the documents, he was appointed as a computer clerk with affixed pay. Upon 5 years he was brought into the regular pay size. Different from the Petitioner. Respondent no. 6 was appointed with the selection process as opposed to the Petitioner. The court ordered the petition to dismiss.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.