IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Dzesetuo Rio – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Nagaland and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 275 of 2022, WP (C) No. 105 of 2020
Decided On : 22-08-2024
Regularization - Work-Charged Employees - Office Memorandum List - The Court interpreted the Office Memorandums dated 22.09.2004 and 17.03.2015, emphasizing the criteria for regularization based on seniority and service length, ultimately directing consideration for the petitioners under the 2004 memorandum.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought regularization of their services as work-charged employees after years of service, claiming inaction from the authorities despite representations for consideration under relevant Office Memorandums.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners were eligible for consideration under the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004, as they had not completed 30 years of service required for the 2015 memorandum.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services under the Office Memorandums issued by the State of Nagaland.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 provides a framework for regularization based on seniority and qualifications, while the 2015 memorandum applies only to those with 30 years of service.
Result: The Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioners for regularization under the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004.
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Both the two writ petitions relate to cases where the petitioners herein have sought for direction to regularize the services of the petitioners. The question is as to whether such direction can be passed by this Court taking into account the schemes of regularization of work-charged employees announced by the State of Nagaland and more particularly, the Office Memorandums dated 22.09.2004 and 17.03.2015. For deciding the said question, this Court finds it first to deal with the respective pleadings in both the writ petitions.
2. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as work-charged Driver vide an Office Order No. MKG/N.H/EI-6/949-50 dated 14.12.1998 in the pay of scale of Rs 900-25-1025-30-1445-35-1760 per month w.e.f. 01.11.1998. The services of the petitioner was extended from time to time without any break in service. At the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner had 21 years 7 months of service and during the course of the hearing, it is stated that the petitioner still continues to render his services. At the time of taking up the instant matter for disposal, the petitioner has approximately 25 years of service. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, being the senior most work-charged Driver in the Division, he submitted a representation on 15.10.2019 praying for regularization. However, the same was not considered, and as such, the petitioner submitted another representation on 09.12.2019. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities to consider the case for regularization, the petitioner has therefore approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
3. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities that there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner was duly appointed on the date stated in this writ petition. However, it is the specific case of the respondents in their affidavit that the petitioner's case is being taken up for consideration. But as he is at Sl. No. 8 of the seniority list of the scale paid work-charge employees under the establishment of E.E PWD (NH), Division-I, Mokokchung, the petitioner’s case would be considered as and when his turn comes. In that regard, the seniority list of the work-charged employees under the National Highway Division No. II, Mokokchung has been enclosed to the said affidavit and from the seniority list it is seen that the petitioner is at S. No. 8.
4. To the said affidavit-in-opposition so filed, the petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply stating inter-alia that the seniority list is not prepared in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004 in as much as, as per the said Office Memorandum, each Department should maintain a seniority list in various categories in order of their length of service, and as such, the question of maintaining the separate seniority list in the Department on Division-wise was contrary to the Office Memorandum. In addition to that, the petitioner had also stated that a perusal of Annexure-7 to the writ petition would show that for the period from 2009 till 2019, 72 drivers were appointed directly without considering the ratio to be maintained in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 22.092004.
5. The case of a petitioner in the instant writ petition is that vide an Office Order No. DS/ESTT-5/98-99/539-45 dated 04.01.1999 issued by the Sub-Divisional Office, PWD (H) Sub-Division No. 1, Dimapur, Nagaland, the petitioner was initially appointed as a work-charged labour on fixed pay w.e.f. 04.01.1999 under the Establishment of the Sub-Divisional PWD (H) Sub-Division No. 1, Dimapur, Nagaland. Thereupon, vide an order dated 04.04.2006, the petitioner was promoted to the post of work-charged Carpenter Helper in the scale of pay of Rs.800-18-890-20-1050-25-1475 per month under the Establishment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD (Housing) No. 1, Dimapur, Nagaland. As on the date of filing of the instant writ petition in the ye
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 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 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 ruled that the failure to regularize the deceased's service violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, mandating compliance with the Office Memorandum.
Employees who completed service requirements must be considered for regularization post-retirement under applicable state policies, including entitlement to benefits.
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.
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.