Back
NELSON SAILO
P. Lalrotluangi @ Lalrotluangi – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NELSON SAILO, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears for the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 despite notice. Vide Order dated 10.05.2023, notice was declared to be complete upon all the private respondents. Having regard to the nature of the case projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was initially engaged as Muster Roll (MR) Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 10.01.1996 without the approval of the Government. She continued to work as such under the respondent No. 5 until she came to be engaged with the approval of the Government in the DP&AR and in the Finance Department through Engagement Card dated 23.04.2012. She was first engaged for the period w.e.f. 01.03.2012 to 28.02.2013 and thereafter, her engagement was extended from time to time and till date. According to the petitioner, the State respondents, vide Office Memorandum dated 29.05.2018 provisionally fixed the inter se seniority of MR LDC employees, wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 3 while the private
The Court emphasized that the eligibility criteria for regularization under the Government of Mizoram Scheme must be strictly followed, particularly regarding age limits at initial engagement.
The regularization of muster roll workers must comply with established policies and legal standards, and irregular appointments cannot be regularized without following due process as mandated by the ....
Policy for regularization must honor prior engagements if criteria are met, despite subsequent changes in policy restricting claims.
Long-serving casual labourers treated as daily rated workers entitled to regularization under SRO 64 despite nomenclature issues, minor breaks, or scheme repeal; vested rights from seven years contin....
Reservation rules apply to regular appointments, entitling candidates to claim reserved positions despite prior engagement as temporary staff.
Welfare policies for employee regularization must be applied fairly to long-serving workers, emphasizing equitable treatment irrespective of technical cutoff dates.
High Courts cannot grant regularization of temporary employees unless they were appointed through a lawful selection process in accordance with constitutional norms.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
