Tripura High Court: S. Talpatra, J. disposed of the petition holding that the discretion lies with the respondents to provide job for livelihood.
Petitioners were engaged as the Daily Rated Worker (DRW) under respondent 2, which is admittedly a Society for promotion of self-employment activities. They have contended that they have completed ten years of service as DRWs and as such, they should be considered for regularization in terms of the policy declared by the State by the memorandum dated 01-09-2008.
Petitioners had challenged the decision contained in the communication dated 24-08-2020 whereby one agency called DREAMZ Services had been given the contract for the works catalogued therein under the terms and conditions that have been agreed upon by SWAVALAMBAN and the said DREAMZ Service. Its tenure was one year, hence, that is assumed to be not in vogue.
They had urged to issue direction in the form of mandamus upon the respondents to quash the NIQ dated 03-07-2020 issued by the Nodal Officer, SWAVALAMBAN. In terms of the earlier note in terms of NIQ, one agency for services had been engaged. The said agency was engaged by a formal letter dated 24-08-2020 which had been sought to be interfered with.
Court opined that the petitioner have failed to substantiate that they were working as the Daily Rated Worker/Contingent Workers in the Government departments for which the memorandum dated 01-09-2008 and the subsequent memorandum dated 21-01-2009 were framed.
Petitioners could not produce the term of their engagements and as such does not have any indefeasible right to continue in such capacity.
But a Society which has been working for the benefit of the people, particularly for promotion of self-employment activities is not expected to disengage the petitioners in the manner they have done so. They should have taken a sincere effort but they have not done so. It was not a matter of compassion, it was completely a matter of approach how to deal with new situation, particularly when the petitioners have worked in their Society for more than ten years.
Court held that it cannot intervene in such matter. Therefore, the respondents were asked to consider the aspect so that the petitioners may get some engagement for livelihood, even through the outsourcing agency which had been providing several services in the Society. The respondents were allowed to be at their discretion to consider whether the petitioners can be provided job so that they can live, as they do not have any other livelihood. Such consideration was made expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of.[Harmila Uchai v. State of Tripura, 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 117, decided on 23-02-2022]
For Petitioner(s): Ms A. Debbarma
For respondent(s): Mr D. Bhattacharya, G.A. Mr S. Saha