SWAPAN BANIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
STATE OF TRIPURA
Click here to view full judgement.
Arindam Lodh,J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents.
(2.) These bunch of writ petitions involve common and identical question of facts; as such, all the writ petitions have been taken up and heard together for disposal.
(3.) The common question of facts emerged in these writ petitions are that all the petitioners were working as daily rated worker (DRW) w.e.f. 2003. They were performing eight hours duty but, they were paid as those of part time workers (PTW). In many correspondences of the department, it is revealed that the petitioners were designated as DRW and not as PTW. In one of the correspondences, the Executive Engineer informed his authority that out of oversight the petitioners were designated as PTW. However, it is an admitted position that the petitioners accepted the remuneration as those of PTW that was fixed remuneration for PTW. Thereafter, the Finance Department issued a memorandum wherein the government has decided to engage the petitioners as DRW. The instant writ petitions are filed by the petitioners to treat the period w.e.f. 2003 to 2012 for which they worked as DRW but, paid as PTW. Further, according to them, they have completed their services as DRW in the year 2012, and from the year 2013 their services are to be regularized granting them regular pay scale as per policy prevalent in the State.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.