Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Mr. Vivito, S/o Shihoto – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Nagaland And Ors – Respondents
WP(C)/204/2023, WP(C)/201/2023
Decided on : 22-08-2024
Regularization - Employment - Office Memorandum 2004, 2015 - The Court upheld the validity of the Office Memorandums for regularization of work-charged employees, emphasizing the state's authority to set conditions for regularization and the lack of vested rights for employees seeking regularization based on length of service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of certain clauses in two Office Memorandums regarding the regularization of work-charged employees, claiming they had served for 29 and 20 years respectively, while the respondents contended they had only served for 9 years.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners had not completed the required length of service for regularization under the applicable Office Memorandums and upheld the state's authority to set conditions for regularization.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization and minimum pay scale based on their claims of long service, and whether the conditions set in the Office Memorandums are constitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that regularization is not a right but a policy decision of the state, and the conditions set forth in the Office Memorandums are valid and constitutional.
Result: The writ petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. K. N. Balagopal, the learned Advocate General, Nagaland assisted by Ms. V. Soukhrie, the learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged Clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2024 as well as Clauses 1 (i), 1(ii), 1(iii), 2 & 3 of the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015. In addition to that, the petitioners have also sought for grant of minimum scale of pay allowed to a labour appointed on regular basis to the petitioners with effect from the date of their initial appointment along with arrears and also a direction upon the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners. For dealing with the issues involved in the instant writ petitions, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts in both the writ petitions.
WP(C) No.201/2023
3. The petitioner herein claims that in the year 1994, a person namely Niraj was appointed as a work-charged labour under the Establishment of the SDO, PWD, Road-II Sub-Division, Dimapur. As the said person failed to report, the petitioner was appointed in his place. However, there was no formal order issued to that effect. Be that as it may, vide an order 02.06.2014, a formal order was issued wherein the petitioner was shown as appointed as a work-charged labour and in the remarks column, it was shown that the petitioner has been serving for the past 20 years and receiving a salary of fixed amount of Rs.5,205/- per month. The petitioner claims that he has rendered 20 years of continuous service as a work-charged labour, and as such, he ought to have been considered in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004. It is the further case of the petitioner that as on the date of filing the writ petition, he had completed 29 years of service. The petitioner herein has assailed the Office Memorandums dated 22.09.2004 as well as 17.03.2015 on the ground that they are unconstitutional as both the Office Memorandums stipulate certain conditions for regularization of the services of the work-charged employees.
4. In the said writ petition, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 that the petitioner has only served for 9 years and not 29 years as alleged in the instant writ petition. It has also been mentioned that the Office Memorandums dated 22.09.2004 as well as 17.03.2015 are schemes made by the State of Nagaland for regularization of its employees. These schemes have been providing benefits to various work-charged as well as casual employees. Laying down prescribed service conditions and criteria for service regularizations are within the exclusive domain of the State Government subject to restrictions envisages in the Constitution. It was also stated that the schemes of 2004 as well as 2015 cannot be challenged on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria laid down therein. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner is at Sl. No.96 of the seniority list prepared of work-charged labour under the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Dimapur Division as on February 2024 and his case would only be considered as per Clause (iv) of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004.
WP(C) No.204/2023
5. The petitioner herein claims that one Tunulal was appointed as a work-charged labour under the Establishment of the SDO, PWD, Road-II Sub-Division, Dimapur in the year 2003. As the person failed to report for duty, the petitioner was appointed in his place. However, there was no formal order issued. After 12 years, vide an order dated 02.06.2014, a formal order was issued whereby the petitioner was shown as appointed as work-charged labour and in the remarks column, it was stated that the petitioner was serving for the past 12 years and he was currently receiving salary amount of Rs.5,205/- per month. It is the case of the
The Court established that work-charged employees are entitled to regularization based on seniority and qualifications as per the 2004 Office Memorandum, not the 2015 one requiring 30 years of servic....
The court established that eligibility for regularization and pensionary benefits must be determined based on the criteria set forth in applicable regulations, and that such benefits cannot be claime....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to interpret beneficial legislation liberally to achieve the legislative intent and uphold the principle of equal pay for equal work.
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....
The court does not have the power to direct regularization and/or absorption in service unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. The petitioner fail....
The court upheld that fixed pay contingency employees do not qualify for regularization under work-charged employee policies, emphasizing the need for adherence to established criteria.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to regularization in his service against the lowest scale of pay permissible for Grade-IV employees within the PH....
The right to regularization and pensionary benefits for Work-Charged employees is governed by specific eligibility criteria, and failure to meet these criteria precludes entitlement to such benefits.
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
