Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Smt. Chubamongla Ao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Nagaland – Respondent
WP(C) 33 of 2020
Decided on : 16-10-2023
Regularization - Sweeper - Nagaland Worked Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001 - Section 2(c), Section 2(d), Section 2(e - The court discussed the petitioner's plea for regularization as a sweeper, citing the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 and relevant sections of the Nagaland Worked Charged and Casual Employees Regulation Act, 2001. The court emphasized the absence of a policy for regularization of contingent workers and the exploitation of the petitioner's long-term service, ultimately directing the respondent authorities to regularize the petitioner's services.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Smt. Chubamongla Ao, sought regularization of her service as a Sweeper after rendering thirty-three years of continuous service on a contingency basis. The State authorities had regularized the services of junior sweepers but had not considered the petitioner's representation for regularization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had served as a sweeper for over thirty-three years and had an unblemished record. It noted the absence of a policy for the regularization of contingent workers and the exploitation of the petitioner's long-term service. The court concluded that denying the petitioner the benefit of regularization would be exploitative, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of her fundamental rights.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's plea for regularization, the applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, and the absence of a policy for the regularization of contingent workers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a policy for the regularization of contingent workers should not deprive the petitioner of the benefits of regularization after thirty-three years of continuous service. It emphasized that exploiting the petitioner's long-term service would be arbitrary and violative of her fundamental rights.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent authorities to regularize the petitioner's services within three months from the date of the order, disposing of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
1. Heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State of Nagaland.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Smt. Chubamongla Ao praying for issuance of directions for regularization the service of the petitioner in the post of Sweeper.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
(ii) That on completion of fifteen (15) years of continuous service, the petitioner was granted revised pay of scale of Rs.850-20-950-25-1300-30-1630/-per month by Office Order No. CE(H)EA-4/08-09 dated 30.10.2009 issued by the respondent no.5, i.e., The Chief Engineer, PWD (Housing), Nagaland, Kohima.
(iii) That after completion of more than twenty nine (29) years of service of being the senior most in the contingency Department, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.10.2019 to the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 praying for regularization of her service in the post of sweeper, however, till date no action has been taken by the respondent authorities on the representation filed by the petitioner.
4. Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner has already rendered thirty three (33) years of continuous service as Sweeper on contingency basis and is on the verge of retirement. It is also submitted that during this period some of the contingent workers who were junior to her were regularized, however, the representation of the present petitioner is yet to be considered by the State respondents.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact of present petitioner having rendered continuous long service in the same capacity has not been disputed by the respondent authorities. The Senior Assistant Estate Officer, PWD (Housing) has also issued a certificate which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition whereby it has been certified that, as on 03.02.2020, the petitioner has rendered service as Sweeper on contingency basis since last twenty nine (29) years and she is the senior most sweeper on contingency basis with an unblemished record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an Office Memorandum bearing No. AR-3/GEN-67/2009 dated 17.03.2015 which is regarding the “Scheme of Regularization and Absorption of Work-Charged and Casual Employees and Revision of Pay/Wages”.
It is submitted that Clause 1 (ii) of the said memorandum provides as follows:
7. It is also submitted that as per Clause 1 (g) of the said Scheme, the applicability of the scheme is exempted in case of part time sweeper and it is submitted that the present petitioner has been working fulltime continuously on a scale of pay since last thirty three (33) years, she is not a part time worker and the applicability of the Officer Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 is not exempted in her case.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has obtained information by filing a RTI application whereby she came to know that in between June 1990 to September 2019, the State respondents have regularized the services of almost forty two (42) swee
The absence of a policy for the regularization of contingent workers should not deprive long-serving employees of the benefits of regularization, as exploiting their long-term service would be arbitr....
Employees with over 30 years of service must be considered for regularization under updated state regulations, emphasizing compliance with governmental directives.
Employees who completed service requirements must be considered for regularization post-retirement under applicable state policies, including entitlement to benefits.
The court directed the authorities to regularize the petitioner's position, emphasizing compliance with established government memorandums regarding employee service regularization.
Regularization of service cannot be claimed as a right; it is subject to meeting specific preconditions set by relevant notifications and judicial precedents.
Long-term contingent employees are entitled to regularization after ten years of continuous service, barring any lawful justification for their ongoing temporary status.
The entitlement to pensionary benefits for long-serving employees, even if initially appointed on a temporary basis, and the obligation of the State to provide minimum benefits for dedicated service.
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
