IMPORTANT POINT
Regularization of service cannot be claimed as a matter of right; specific conditions must be met as per applicable notifications.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers:

“(a) Arrear amounts of enhancement of her remuneration to Rs.9,000.00 (Rupees Nine Thousand) as made vide order dated 4th June 2018 issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure.9) shall not be made immediately.

(b) The service of the Petitioner shall not be regularized in service as Grade-IV employee as a onetime measure vide Notification dated 31.08.2015 issued by the Registrar (Administration) Gauhati High Court, Guwahati (Annexure.8) and

(c) Alternatively, the service of the Petitioner shall not be regularized in a sanctioned post of Grade-IV in the establishment of the respondent no. 3.

And after perusal of the records, causes shown, if any, and upon hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass any other appropriate order or direction as your Lordships deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case so as to grant adequate relief/reliefs to the Petitioner in the interest of justice.”

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was appointed as contingent Manual Worker (Peon) vide order dated 21.08.2009 at a fixed pay of Rs.1500/- and was posted in the Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon. The remuneration was enhanced from time to time and vide an order dated 04.06.2018, the pay was enhanced to Rs.9,000/- per month. Since, the service of the petitioner was not regularized and in the meantime, an Office Memorandum was issued on 31.08.2015, the petitioner was aggrieved and accordingly had filed the instant writ petition. It is also submitted that a recruitment process for regular employment was held in which the petitioner had participated but could not qualify.

3. The claim is mainly based on a notification dated 31.08.2015 issued by the Registrar (Admin.)-cum-In Charge, Centralized Recruitment, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati.

4. I have heard Shri Surajit Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri HK Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court and Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.

5. Shri Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, had informed this Court that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, on 05.09.2022 the petitioner was released from service by citing financial crunch. On the merits of the case, he has submitted that by working for a long period of time, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 31.08.2015. It has also been submitted that salaries for 23 months were not paid to the petitioner and a direction should be given to that effect. He has also submitted that the experience gathered by the petitioner should have been taken into consideration in the recruitment process which was not done.

6. Per contra, Shri H.K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court has submitted that though the claim is based on the Notification dated 31.08.2015, the same is not at all applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that the notification contemplates 10 (ten) years of service as on 14.08.2015 and on the said date, the petitioner did not complete the requisite period of 10(ten) years of service. He has also highlighted the aspect that the notification contemplated one time exercise and the same cannot be applied at a subsequent stage.

7. Shri Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has endorsed the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. The rival contentions have been duly considered.

9. It is not in dispute that the claim for regularization of service is based on a Notification dated 31.08.2015. The relevant aspect of the said notification states as follows:

“With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to inform you tha