Smt. Ratna Rani Saha v. The State of Tripura and 2 Ors

Order

27/07/2023

Heard Mr. DK Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- "i. Issue notice upon the respondents; ii. Issue rule directing each of the respondents to show-cause as to why the respondents shall not regularize the service of the petitioner in the post of Helper Grade II with regular pay scale with effect from 01.01.2005 AD instead of 05.04.2011; iii. Issue rule directing each of the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be paid arrears of pay and allowances of the post of Helper Grade II for the period from 01.01.2005 to 04.04.2011 and resultant increase of pay and allowances till date; iv. Grant any other relief/reliefs to the petitioners as the Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper including cost".

Prior to filing of this writ petition, the petitioner had approached this court by filing another writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to regularize her service w.e.f. 01.01.2005 in the scale of pay of Rs. 4530-13,000/- PB-1+GP Rs. 1200/- with all financial benefits. The said writ petition was numbered as WP(C) 55 of 2021. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, it was disposed of vide order dated

01.07.2022, with the following observations and directions: "8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, if found suitable. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall pass the necessary orders, in accordance with law, and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶9In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the respondents, she shall be at liberty to challenge the same since the doctrine of resjudicata will not apply as there will be fresh cause of action".

In view of the judgment and order dated 01.07.2022 passed by this court in WP(C) 55 of 2021, the petitioner submitted her representation to the respondent no. 3 seeking regularization of her service with all financial and service benefits. In response to the said representation, the respondent no. 3 vide communication under No. F.3(50)-TSECL/HRM/ CourtCase/2022/16996-17012, dated 17th April, 2023 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), informed the petitioner that she was not suitable for regularization. Mr. Daschoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the respondents are under obligation to assign reasons in the impugned order dated 01.04.2023 whereby and whereunder the respondents have stated that the petitioner is not suitable for being regularized. In the opinion of this court, the reasoning of the respondents that the petitioner is not suitable for regularization is itself a reason. It is not the duty of the court to determine the suitability of an employee. It is absolutely within the prerogative of the employer. It is an order simpliciter. So, this court will refrain itself from interfering with the findings of the employer, the respondents herein. As a sequel, I find no merit in the instant writ petition, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed at the motion stage itself.

JUDGE

SAIKA T KAR by SAIKAT KAR Date: 2023.07.27 16:25:46 +05'30'

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) 439/2023 Smt. Ratna Rani Saha ----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura and 2 ors. ----Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DK Daschoudhury, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA Mr. S. Saha, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH