IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KAKHETO SEMA, J.
Maryangla – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Nagaland and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 206 of 2022
Decided On : 28-08-2024
Regularisation - Service Regularisation - Various Sections - The Court discussed the principles of regularisation, emphasizing that retrospective regularisation is not legally tenable unless the employee is part of the regular cadre. The Court highlighted the necessity of following constitutional and statutory rules for appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a contingency sweeper in 1988 and sought retrospective regularisation of service and pay. Despite being regularised in 2022, the petitioner claimed rights from the initial appointment date.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner was appointed on a contingency basis and could not claim retrospective regularisation or pay as she was not part of the regular cadre until 2022.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to retrospective regularisation of service and pay from the date of initial appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that retrospective regularisation is not permissible unless the employee is part of the regular service, and mere continuation in a temporary role does not confer such rights.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KAKHETO SEMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. I. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents.
2. The limited issued raised in the writ petition is for retrospective regularisation of the service of the petitioner with regular scale of pay.
3. The facts of the case in brief are as under:
(ii) That the petitioner on 16/02/2000 submitted the representation to the Director of Printing Press, Nagaland, Kohima for regularisation of service and for the scale of pay as paid to the regular sweeper.
(iii) That vide order No. NGP/EST/1/90 dated 29/02/2000, the petitioner was temporarily appointed as the sweeper in the Directorate of Printing & Stationary, Nagaland, Kohima, in the scale of pay of Rs. 600-16-690-20-1090-25-1475/- plus special compensatory (Remote locality) allowances @ 15% of basic pay subject to a minimum of Rs. 125/- and a maximum of Rs. 1200/- P.M and all other allowances as are admissible under the rules from time to time in the State of Nagaland w.e.f 01/03/2000. The appointment was not made against any vacancy. A similar order, of the same date, was passed with only the difference in the scale of pay of Rs. 800-16-890-20-1050-25-1475/- P.M.
(iv) That thereafter, the petitioner again made the representation dated 10/02/2021 to the Director, Printing & Stationary, Nagaland, Kohima, for regularisation of service as well as for the scale of pay.
(v) That subsequently, by the order dated 30/04/200 issued by the Director, Printing & Stationary, Nagaland, Kohima, the contingency service of the petitioner at the fixed pay of Rs. 750/- P.M was extended for a period of 6(six) months w.e.f. 01/04/2001.
(vi) The petitioner filed the W.P. (C) No. 215 of 2018 for regularisation of her service which was disposed by this Court by the judgment & order dated 03/02/2020. The operative portion of the said judgment read as follows:
“13. Upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner for regularisation should be considered by the respondents as a special case keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Non availability of vacancy in the post of sweeper presently cannot be the ground not to consider her regularisation. It will be incumbent upon the respondents to create a supernumerary post to accommodate the petitioner for her regularisation, if so required. The post so created will be a personal post and shall cease to exist once a regular vacancy occurs and the petitioner adjusted against such regular vacancy.
15. The respondent No. 5, within a period of 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, shall initiate the process of regularisation in terms of the direction given herein above, if necessary, by obtaining the approval of the administrative department. All the respondents shall co-operate with the process and the entire exercise be completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Pending such consideration, the services of the petitioner should not be varied to her disadvantage in any manner.”
(vii) That pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Government of Nagaland, Home Department, Printing & Stationary Branch wrote the letter dated 15/06/2022 to the Director, Printing & Stationary, Nagaland, Kohima, conveying the approval of the Cabinet for creation of a supernumerary post for regularising the service of the petitioner.
(viii) Consequent thereto, by the order No. NGP/EST/330
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology & Another vs. Manoj K. Mohanty
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Umadevi & Others
State of Punjab & Another vs. Surjit Singh & Others
State of Rajasthan & Others vs. Daya Lal & Others
Surinder Singh & Another vs. Engineer-in-Chief CPWD & Others
Uttar Pradesh Land Development Cooperation & Another vs. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar & Another
Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn (Direct recruit) & Others vs. State of U.P. & Others
B. Sudharkar Rao & Others vs. U. Govinda Rao & Others
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 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 ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
Regularization of service is the exclusive domain of the employer, and temporary and casual employees cannot seek regularization. Government orders come into effect from the date of issuance unless s....
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 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.
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.