01. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. A. T. Pal appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. K. De appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

02. The writ petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

               i. Issue notice upon the Respondents.

               ii. Call for the records.

               iii. Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Petitioner shall not be regularized as permanent labour from the next date of completion of 10 years of service in terms of the Memorandum dated 21.01.2009.

               AND

               Issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the Petitioner shall not be granted all service benefits including the arrears of financial benefits pursuant to the regularization of the Petitioner.

               iv. And after hearing the parties be pleased to make the rule absolute.

               AND/OR

               Pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper.

               AND

               For this act of kindness your humble petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

03. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner first of all drawn the attention of the Court referring a communication dated 02.07.2007 written by the Superintendent of Fisheries to the Director of Fisheries (Annexure-1) wherein it was specifically mentioned by the Superintendent that the present writ petitioner was discharging his duties as a casual worker to the said department w.e.f. 05.12.1999 as a casual labour without any concurrence of the Finance Department. Learned Counsel further submitted that since 1999 to 2023, the petitioner continued his job in the said post as casual labour without any regularization. In this regard, Learned Counsel referred another communication dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure-2) written to Director of Fisheries, by the Superintendent of Fisheries, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the department had sent a list to the Directorate and out of 10 nos. of casual workers 7 nos. were regularized as permanent labour vide departments memorandum dated 28.04.2008 but the petitioner and two others were not regularized inspite of rendering his job as a casual worker and in this regard, inspite of repeated approach no step was taken by the department. Learned Counsel further submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 of the Department of Finance, Government of Tripura (Annexure-3). It was further submitted that the casual workers who in the same department joined much later than the present petitioner have been regularized and provided the service benefit and out of those workers one Md. Rafiqul Islam joined on 10.04.2002, Sri Sadhan Das joined on 02.01.2000 and Sri Amalesh Das joined on 10.04.2002. So, under compelling circumstances the petitioner has been compelled to file this writ petition before this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. T. Pal further drawn the attention of the Court that the notification dated 31.07.2018 of the Finance Department relied upon by the State-respondents would not affect the case of the present petitioner and in this regard, reliance was placed upon a judgment of the coordinate bench of this High Court dated 24.01.2022 in W.P.(C) No.536/537 of 2021 wherein this High Court in para No.13 observed as under:

               “[13] Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the records as produced with the writ petition and the reply, this court is of the view that the memorandum dated 31.07.2018 has repealed the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 with “immediate effect‟. Therefore, the repeal vide the memorandum dated 31.07.2018 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] would only be effective from 31.07.2018, not before that. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners had completed their ten years of service on 19.12.2017. Hence, the petitioners can rightfully claim the benefit of the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 where it has been unequivocally stated and provided that the government has taken a policy decision to regularize services of full time DRW/Casual/Contingent workers from the next date of completion of ten years of service, if they fulfilled the criteria as laid down therein.”

               Referring the same, Learned Counsel drawn the attention of this Court that the case of present petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment and the State-respondents have not challenged the judgment to any other upper forum and as such the same has attained finality.

               Reliance was further placed upon another citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826, wherein in para Nos.10, 20, 26, 27 and 28, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:

               “10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.

               20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India5, it was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:

               “6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

               7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…”

               26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

               27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

               28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:

               i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed;

               ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits.”

               Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment.

04. The writ petition is contested by the said respondents by filing by counter-affidavit. In para No.7 of the said counter-affidavit, the State-respondents have taken the plea that the Finance Department, Government of Tripura on 31.07.2018 has issued one memorandum regarding policy decision of the Government on regularization of service of DRWs/Casual/Contingent/PTW etc. Workers in Government Establishments and State PSUs and Autonomous bodies including AMC/NPs, wherein it is specifically stated that the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 issued by the Finance Department, (Annexure-3) as relied upon by the petitioner has been repealed and as such on the basis of said memorandum (Annexure-R-1), the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition. It was further submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was engaged without any concurrence of the Finance Department, so, question of regularization does not arise.

05. Learned Addl. G.A., Mr. De in support of his contention relied upon one judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in State of Tripura & ors. vs. Suprava Debnath dated 16.10.2023 reported in (2024) 1 TLR 346 wherein in para No.37 this High Court observed as under:

               “37. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is abundantly clear that in case of undue benefit conferred on someone inadvertently or by ignoring the provision laid down in law, others similarly situated persons cannot claim granting of similar benefit as a matter of right. Apart from what we have discussed in the preceding paragraphs on the subject in issue we are of the firm opinion that if a wrong committed in an earlier case or cases, the same cannot be perpetuated by treating the same as precedent.”

               Referring the same, Learned Addl. G.A. submitted that the aforesaid case covers the case of the present petitioner. Learned Addl. G.A. further submitted that the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors. dated 10.04.2006 reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is also applicable in respect of illegal appointment. Since in this case the petitioner was appointed without any concurrence of the Finance Department illegally, So, his case was not considered and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

06. I have heard both the sides and gone through the writ petition and documents annexed with the writ petition and also the counter-affidavit along with the documents filed by the State-respondents. It is the admitted position that the present petitioner has been discharging his functions as a causal labour under the Department of Fisheries at Udaipur since from the year 1999 which reveals from Annexure-1, as already stated. The respondents have not disputed the said fact. It is also on record that the petitioner is still undergoing his service as a casual worker under the said department which also reveals from Exhibit-2, i.e. the communication of Superintendent of Fisheries, Udaipur, Gomati District to the Director of Fisheries, Government of Tripura dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure-2). The said document also has not been disputed by the petitioner. It is also on record that apart from the present petitioner and two others, some other casual labours namely Md. Rafiqul Islam, Sri Sadhan and Sri Amalesh Das who later on joined in the department, by this time became regular as permanent labour. The said fact also has not been objected by the State- respondents. The stand taken by the State-respondents in this case is that in view of memorandum dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure-R-1) relied upon by the State-respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this case as because by the said memorandum dated 31.07.2018 the earlier Memorandum issued by the Finance Department dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure-3) was repealed by the Finance Department. So, nothing survives for the petitioner to claim regularization in this case. It was also submitted by Learned Counsel for the State-respondents that in view of the judgment of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., the petitioner is not entitled to get any redress in this writ petition since his initial engagement was illegal. It is surprising that how the respondent-authority failed to regularize the case of the present petitioner when the department regularized the services of the other persons who joined in the department, after a considerable period from the date of joining of the present petitioner. The petitioner joined as a casual labour in the year 1999 and others who got regularized were joined in the year 2002. The respondents took the plea that by the memorandum dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure-R-1), the earlier memorandum of the Finance Department has been repealed by the Government.

07. Now for the sake of convenience, I would like to refer herein below the memorandum dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure-3):

               No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part)

               GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA

               DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

               Dated, Agartala, the 21st January 2009

               M E M O R A N D U M

               Subject: Regularization of services of DRWs/Casual/ Contingem Workers on the next date of completion of 10 years service.

               The undersigned is directed to inform that the Government has take policy decision to regularize services of full-time DRWs/Casual/Contingent Workers from the next date of completion of 10 years of service at fulfill the following criterion as per Department-wise names and particulars attached herewith:

               (i) DRW/Casual/Contingent workers who were engaged on a full time basis in different Departments with or without concurrence of Finance Department other than Permanent Labourers, Part-time workers, Anganwadi Workers and Helpers, Home Guards, Teachers and Workers engaged under SSA and other Schemes/ programmes may be considered for regularization as per names attached.

               (ii) Requirement of age as per Recruitment Rules will be deemed relaxed for the purpose of this regularization.

               (iii) Requirement of educational qualification as per Recruitment Rules will be deemed as relaxed for regularization under Group-D only. In case of DRW/ and Contingent Workers who were appointed under Group-C category, educational qualification as required under concerned R.R. must be ensured while entertaining their cases for regularization.

               (iv) Except age and educational qualification mentioned in point (ii) & (iii) all other criterion as per relevant Recruitment Rules in reservation roster will have to be followed strictly for this process of regularization.

               (v) Subject to fulfillment of above conditions, the eligible workers will be provided pay scale in the relevant post on the following day of completion of 10 years of service(without any break) from the date of joining. In the event of revision of pay scales the revised structure will be followed as per Govt.'s decision.

               2. To facilitate quick action for implementation of the above decisions, appropriate authorities of the concerned Administrative Departments of the State Government are authorized to take following actions:

               i) The Departments will scrutinize the records and particulars of the workers whose names and particulars are included in the annexure attached herewith to ascertain their eligibility for regularization. Only those workers out of the attached annexure who fulfills all the above criteria are to be regularized.

               ii) While ascertaining eligibility, other than relaxation made in respect of educational qualification and age, other requirements like nationality, reservation quota are to be followed strictly. All original documents shall be checked by the Departments to ensure genuineness of records/documents.

               iii) After ascertaining the number of eligible cases, the department will take steps for creation of required number of posts in the appropriate category including creation of post for SC and ST as per 100 point roster for accommodating them in the concerned pay scale for regularization. The computation is to be done to ensure 31% reservation for ST & 17% reservation for SC against the number of UR candidates as per list enclosed without bringing any previous backlog. Formal appointment orders are to be issued by concerned appropriate authority accordingly. After taking this step department will send proposal to the Finance Department for ex-post-facto concurrence for creation of posts

               iv) Following regularization of the eligible cases out of list attached herewith, the Departments are required to take action to ensure recruitment of shortfall of candidates under ST & SC category to fulfill the roster. In respect of such shortfall under Group D category, the Tribal Welfare Department would act as the Nodal Department for selection of required number of candidates and sponsoring them to the respective Department. The Departments are requested to send report to the Finance Department within one month immediately after action taken as per the instant Memorandum alongwith list of workers regularized.

               3. There shall be a complete ban on engagement of DRW/Casual Contingent etc, workers after 31.3.2003 without concurrence from Finance Department. Responsibility shall be fixed on the official found responsible for any irregular engagement henceforth. Such irregular engagement shall have to be instantly terminated. The wages, if paid any, shall be recovered from the official concerned.

               4. The undersigned is directed to request all concerned to ensure strict implementation of the above decisions.

               From the aforesaid memorandum, it appears that by the said memorandum Government decided to regularize the services of Full Time DRWs/Casual/Contingent/PTW Workers on completion of 10 years of their service and subject to fulfillment of other conditions and in clause No.(1) of the said memorandum, it was clearly stated that the casual workers and the other workers who were engaged ‘with or without concurrence of the Finance Department’ (emphasis laid) were considered for regularization by the Government. So, if we consider the case of the present petitioner that he was engaged in the year 1999 then it is clear that his case is squarely covers by the said memorandum dated 21.01.2009 (Annexure-3). There is no such cogent evidence before this Court at this stage as to whether the present petitioner in this regard approached to the authority or not for his regularization. But it is the admitted position that the department knowing the status as a casual labour without engaged in their concurrence of the Finance Department continued to render his job in the department.

08. Now let us see the relevant portion of the memorandum dated 31.07.2018 (Annexure-R-1) which is as follows:

               No.10 (2)-FIN (G)/2008(Part)

               GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA

               DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

               Dated, the 31st July, 2018.

               M E M O R A N D U M

               Subject: Policy decision on regularization of services of DRWs/Casual /Contingent/PTW etc. Workers in Government Establishments and State PSUs and Autonomous bodies including AMC/NPs. Finance Department has issued instructions from time to time as given for regularization of services of DRWs/Casual/Contingent/ PTW etc. Workers on the next date of completion of 17 years / 15 years / 10 years of services. The memorandums are as follows:-