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. ........