1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

                  “I. Issue notice upon the Respondents.

                  II. Call for the records.

                  III. Issue Rule calling upon the Respondent to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ of like nature shall not be issued directing the Respondents to extend in favour of the Petitioner minimum pay scale along with admissible allowances meant for the post of Cleaner (Group-D).

                  AND

                  Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why to Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ of like nature shall not be issued mandating the Respondents to extend all financial benefits including arrears of financial benefits pursuant to extension of minimum of the pay scale along with admissible allowances meant for the post of Cleaner (Group-D) in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the prayer above.

                  AND

                  Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the letter dated 21.11.2024 (ANNEXURE 5 to the Writ

                  Petition) shall not be set aside and quashed.

                  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 remain grateful.”

2. Heard Learned Counsel, Ms. Ishpa Chakma and Learned Counsel, Mr. Arijit Bhaumik appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Learned Addl. GA, Mr. Dipankar Sarma appearing on behalf of the respondents-State.

3. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this Court that the petitioner was engaged as a Part Time Worker under SDM, Kamalpur on 01.01.1995 and continued to discharge her duties as a Part Time Worker. Thereafter, by a memo dated 14.09.2017(Annexure-2), the Addl. Secretary & Director, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Govt. of Tripura, appointed the petitioner as a DRW (Group-D) as she completed 10 years of service as on 30.11.2012. It was mentioned in the said memo that the Part Time Worker on being engaged as DRW would continue to perform similar kind of work as they are doing presently or any other work, in addition, as may be assigned by the Department.

                  Learned Counsel further submitted that after engagement as DRW, the petitioner has been discharging the functions and duties of a Cleaner (Group-D), which is a sanctioned post under the Department.

                  The petitioner filed one writ petition bearing WP(C) No.666 of 2022 before this Court seeking engagement as DRW w.e.f. 01.01.2012 instead of 14.09.2017. However, this Court by a judgment and order dated 13.01.2023 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. According to Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the dismissal of the said writ petition will not debar the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. It was further submitted that as the service of the petitioner was not regularized so, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 23.09.2024 upon the respondents for providing her benefit of minimum pay scale along with admissible allowances meant for the post of Cleaner (Group-D) as well as Peon (Group-D) but that was turned down by the authority by a communication dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure-5) stating that there is no guideline of the State Government for consideration of the benefits of minimum of the pay scale meant for the post of Cleaner (Group-D)/Peon (Group D) in favour of the petitioner. It was also informed by the respondents that the policy for regularization of services of DRWs/Casual/Contingent/PTW etc. has been repealed by the State Government by a memorandum dated 31.07.2018. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the reliefs.

                  In support of his contention, Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagjit Singh & Ors., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, wherein in para No.60, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

                  “60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the employees concerned (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” summarised by us in para 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted that during the course of their employment, the temporary employees concerned were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities which at some point in time were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts were also posted to discharge the same work which was assigned to temporary employees from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity on any of the principles summarised by us in para 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay scale of regularly engaged government employees holding the same post.”

                  Learned Counsel further relied upon another citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer & Ors., reported in (2019) 12 SCC 297 wherein in para Nos.11 and 12, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

                  “11. The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S)1] is whether temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj [State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 828] and Surjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, (2009) 9 SCC 514 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 696] , this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post. 12 [Ed.: Para 12 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./111/2018 dated 4-7-2019.] . In view of the judgment in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] , we are unable to uphold the view of the High Court that the appellants herein are not entitled to be paid the minimum of the pay scales. We are not called upon to adjudicate on the rights of the appellants relating to the regularisation of their services. We are concerned only with the principle laid down by this Court initially in Putti Lal [State of U.P. v. Putti Lal, (2006) 9 SCC 337 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1819] relating to persons who are similarly situated to the appellants and later affirmed in Jagjit Singh [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] that temporary employees are entitled to minimum of the pay scales as long as they continue in service.”

                  Referring those citations, Learned Counsel submitted that in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforenoted cases, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of minimum of pay scale at the lowest grade in the regular pay scale extended to the regular Group-D post. Furthermore, Learned Counsel relied upon an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 05.11.2025 in WA No.134 of 2024 and submitted that this present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court and urged for allowing this writ petition.

4. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit denying the assertions of the petitioner made in the writ petition. In para Nos.8, 9 and 10, the respondent authority has submitted as under:

                  “8. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph 1 to 4 of the writ petition it is stated that, the petitioner, Smt Malati Deb (Paul), DRW has approached before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura [W.P.(C) No.83/2025] (Flag-A) against the State Govt. (Respondents) for providing minimum pay scale meant for the post of Peon, Group-D alongwith all financial benefits including arrears on the Principle of equal pay for equal work.

                  The Brief Note as under :-

                  On scrutiny of available records, it is found that Smt Malati Deb was engaged by the then SDM, Kamalpur as a Part Time Contingent Worker since 01.01.1995 without concurrence of the Finance Deptt. (copy enclosed at Flag-B). The Petitioner was engaged as DRW, Group-D w.e. from 01-12-2012 vide Memo. No.F.2-1(1)-ESTT/DF/2017 dated 14-09-2017 of the Addl. Secretary & Director, Food & Civil Supplies, Tripura, Agartala (copy enclosed at Flag-C) as per concurrence of the Finance Department vide letter No.F.34(2)-Fin(G)/2016 dated 01-09-2017 (copy enclosed at Flag-D), As such, Smt. Deb, DRW, Group-D has been serving as a DRW during the period from 01.12.2012 to till date under the SDM, Kamalpur.

                  There is no guideline of the State Government for consideration of the benefits of minimum of the pay scale meant for the post of Cleaner/ Peon(Group-D) in favour of the Petitioner since the Petitioner has been discharging as a DRW (Group-D).

                  As per Memo vide No.F.10(5)-Fin(G)/2014 dated 23-05-2014 by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tripura (at Flag-E) and No.F.10(5)-Fin(G)/2014 dated 20-06-2014 (at Flag-F) of the Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura, all the Departments were requested to compile relevant details separately in respect of each DRW & PTW in the prescribed forms (Format-I & Formats-II) who are working in different department with concurrence of Finance Department and otherwise and instructed to send the same to the Finance Department with approval of the Minister of the Department Concerned.

                  Accordingly, after approval of the Hon'ble Minister of the Department, a list of 45 Nos. PTW/DRW/Casual /Contingent works of this Department vide No.F.2-1(2)-ESTT/DF/2011(Part)/14373 dated 27-09-2014 (in Format-I and 9 Nos. PTW workers in Format-II were sent to the Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura (at Flag-G) The name of Smt. Malati Deb, PTW was figured in SL No.5 of the said Format-II. The Department re-submitted again the list of 7 (Seven) Nos. PTW to the Under Secretary, Finance Department (General) vide No.F.2-1(13)ESTT/DF/2015/10060 dated 10-08-2017 wherein the name of Smt. Deb was figured at SL. No.4 (at Flag-H) with inclusion of the date of birth. As such, the Finance Department concurred for engagement 6(Six) Nos. PTWs as DRW, Group-D with prospective effect in which the name of Smt. Deb was figured at SL No.4. Accordingly, Smt. Malati Deb was engaged as DRW, Group-D vide this Office Memorandum No.F.2-1(1)-ESTT/DF/2017/11,155 dated 14-09-2017.

                  A Copy of the Memorandum No.10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 31/07/2018 is annexed & marked as Annexure- R/1.

                  10. That in reply to the statement made in paragraph 5 to 12 of the writ petition it is stated that, as per available Office records, the petitioner, Smt. Malati Deb was engaged by the then SDM, Kamalpur as PTWs since 01-01-1995 without having concurrence of the Finance Department as well as any formal order. At present, Smt. Malati Deb is working as DRW, Group-D in the Office of the SDM, Food Section, Kamalpur from 01-12-2012 to till date by Memo. No.F.2-1(1)-ESTT/DF/2017 dated 14-09-2017 of the Addl. Secretary & Director, Food & Civil Supplies, Tripura, Agartala. At present, Smt. Malati Deb is working as DRW, Group-D in the Office of the SDM, Food Section, Kamalpur from 01-12-2012 to till date.

                  There is no guideline of the State Government for consideration of the benefits of minimum of the pay scale meant for the post of Cleaner/Peon (Group-D) in favour of the Petitioner since the Petitioner has been discharging as a DRW (Group-D).

                  Designation of post is different from classification of posts. For example, a person can be engaged as Peon, Helper, Multi-tasking staff which are all classified under Group-D. The nature of works performed determines the classification. The PTW/DRWs perform some limited duties of Group-D that are restricted to a specific time period (2 hours/ 3 hours/ 4 hours). Beyond that, it is their own willingness to do a work, They have the freedom to quit the job at any time. However, the PTW/DRW cannot be treated at par with a regularly appointed Group-D employees due to the differences in the characteristics of respective service. Group-D employees are appointed against formal creation of posts after following a proper transparent recruitment process, PTWs are not appointed through proper recruitment process. They are engaged randomly.

                  Posts clubbed under Group-D have specific Recruitment Rules adhering which persons are appointed. This is not in the case with PTW. Hence, as per RR, those Group-D posts have specific pay scale, which is not the case with PTW. As such, there is no reason to equate these posts.

                  PTW is engaged on "No Work no pay" basis. They are not engaged against any sanctioned post. Therefore, they are not in a position to seek parity in terms of pay at par with a regular employee.

                  Further, Finance Department, Government of Tripura vide Memorandum No. 10(2)-FIN(G)/2008(Part) dated 31/07/2018 has reviewed 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. And, according to that Memo. "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:-