IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAKHETO SEMA, J.
Sentikala Sangtam W/o Jadav Ghimira – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 183 of 2020
Decided on : 07-11-2023
Regularisation - Service - O.M. 20/08/2015, Order 11/09/2018 - The court discussed the O.M. 20/08/2015 ordering phase-wise regularisation of 94 fixed pay adhoc typists in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat and the order 11/09/2018 regularising 82 casual typists under the Home Department. The court held that the petitioner, appointed as a typist at Nagaland House Guwahati, is not entitled to the benefits of regularisation extended to the typists in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat and the Home Department, as the services belong to different cadre services.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction for the regularisation of her service as a typist with retrospective effect, citing the regularisation of junior typists and the modification of policies by the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner, appointed on a contingency basis in a non-sanctioned post, cannot claim regularisation. The court directed the State respondents to consider the petitioner's case for regularisation in accordance with the policy for work-charged and casual employees.
Issues: Regularisation of the petitioner's service as a typist, applicability of O.M. 20/08/2015 and order 11/09/2018, and the petitioner's appointment in a non-sanctioned post.
Ratio Decidendi: Regularisation in service requires a regular sanctioned post, and the court cannot direct regularisation or grant benefits payable to regular employees. The petitioner's appointment in a non-sanctioned post precludes the consideration of regularisation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the State respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's case for regularisation in accordance with the policy for work-charged and casual employees.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. L. Likhase Sangtam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Mere, learned Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents.
2. On 13/09/2022, Mr. Likhase Sangtam, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the matter can be taken up for hearing as the State respondents have filed their affidavit and the rights of the profoma respondent No. 4 to 14 will not be adversely affected even if the matter is taken up for hearing. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had directed that the case can be listed for admission hearing.
3. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the State respondents to consider the regularisation of the service of the petitioner as typist with retrospective effect from the date the respondent No. 4 to 14, who are juniors to the petitioner, were regularised in service.
1
4. The facts of the case, in brief, as submitted by the petitioner, is that, by the order dated 30/06/1998, the petitioner was appointed as a Typist on contingency basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 450/-P.M w.e.f 01/06/1998 for a period of 1(one) year at Nagaland House Guwahati, by the Deputy Resident Commissioner, Nagaland House Guwahati. The service of the petitioner has been extended from time to time and the petitioner has been serving in the post for more than 22 years. The petitioner is presently receiving a fixed pay of Rs. 6000/-P.M. The petitioner has submitted the representation dated Nil to the Home Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima, for regularisation of his service, however the same has not been considered.
5. That the Government of Nagaland in the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (Administrative Reforms Branch), has brought out the Office Memorandum dated 16/03/2006 stating therein that, the Cabinet on the recommendation of the Committee has approved the Nagaland Directorate Common Ministerial Rules on 23/02/2006 and has accordingly asked all the departments to strictly implement the service rules. The said O.M has also brought out some of the salient features of the rules which inter-alia provides that no further recruitment will be made to the post of typist and on conversion of all the post of typist to LDA-cum-Computer Assistant, the post of typist will stand abolished.
6. The Government has thereafter issued the notification dated 01/07/2009, conveying that all the existing post of typist in all levels of service and offices under the State Government, including the Nagaland Civil Secretariat, the office of the Nagaland Public Service Commission, the office of the State Vigilance Commission, the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Directorate offices, the District offices and the Sub-divisional offices shall be automatically converted to the post of the Lower Division Assistant-cum-Computer Assistant with effect from the date of retirement of the incumbent from service or from the date the Government servant dies in harness. The notification dated 01/07/2009 has been issued in partial modification of the O.M. dated 16/03/2006.
7. The Government has thereafter issued the O,M dated 20/08/2015 partially modifying the notification dated 01/07/2009 and cancelling the policy of converting all the post of Typist in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat to the post of LDA-cum-Computer Assistant on vacation of the post by the incumbent typist and providing for phase wise regularisation of the 94(ninety four) fixed pay adhoc typist in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat as per seniority and suitability against retirement vacancies of regular typist in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat in terms of the existing policy of regularisation of adhoc/contract service. The O.M further provides that all the post of typist in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat will be abolished phase wise and no more fresh appointment of typist will be made in the Secretariat and the post of typist vacated on the retirement of the regular incumbent typist or for any o
Reshmi Basfor -versus-State of Assam and Ors.
State of Manipur and Another -versus-Ksh. Moirangninthou Singh and Others
Regularisation in service requires a regular sanctioned post, and the court cannot direct regularisation or grant benefits payable to regular employees.
The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to the Office Memorandum and the need for the respondent authorities to communicate the fate of the representations filed by the petitioners within....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to regularization after completing ten years of service on sanctioned and vacant posts, as supported by constitutional....
The court affirmed that the principle of equal treatment in public employment must be upheld, requiring regularization for long-serving employees despite technical non-compliance with bureaucratic cr....
Employment and Service matter - Regularization of service - Absence of any strong justification assigned by respondents, for not regularizing service of petitioner, case of petitioner also needs cons....
The court emphasized the need for regularization of employees appointed irregularly but possessing the prescribed qualifications and working against sanctioned posts, in line with previous judgments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's entitlement to regularization of service was upheld based on previous judgments and orders, the discrimination faced by the p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.