Akil Kureshi, J. - (1.) This appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2019 passed in WP(C) No.450 of 2019.
(2.) Brief facts are as under: The respondents original petitioners had filed the said writ petition in which they had prayed for the directions to absorb them as permanent labourers in terms of Tripura Government Sepahijala Biological Complex/any other complex/Institution, Permanent Labourers (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Rules). According to the petitioners they were engaged as casual workers during different periods between 2003-2008. Majority of the writ petitioners were engaged in the year 2003. Some of them were engaged in the year 2007-08. The Government undertook the exercise of regularizing longstanding casual labourers as per the Government scheme for regularization. A list of 363 casual workers was prepared by the Deputy Conservator of Forests and communicated the District Forest Officer on 31.10.2017. Names of petitioners No.1 to 3 and 6 to 11 appeared in the said list. In the petition the petitioners had contended that looking to their length of engagement as casual labourers, in terms of the provisions of the said rules they were required to be regularized. Even the Council of Ministers had cleared the absorption of all 363 casual workers listed in the said list as permanent labourers. However, eventually out of the said list only 341 casual workers were absorbed as permanent labourers excluding the petitioners. The petitioners had further averred that in other divisions also similarly situated casual workers were absorbed on the strength of the said rules.
(3.) The present appellants, i.e. the original respondents had opposed the prayers by filing affidavits. In the first of such affidavits dated 27.06.2019 it was contended that upon scrutiny only 349 out of the said 363 listed casual workers were found eligible for absorption. An additional affidavit was filed on 07.09.2020 in which it was further stated that out of the list of 363, 14 labourers were not regularized as per the report of the concerned District Level Committees.;