Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
DEVASHIS BARUAH
T. Chinglo Son of Tomo – Appellant
Versus
State of Nagaland – Respondent
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Ms. Shisa Jamir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. N. Angami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not regularizing the services of the petitioner in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 although the petitioner is duly eligible as per the said Office Memorandum.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that vide an office order dated 29.11.1991, he was appointed as Labour on fixed pay basis of Rs.450/- per month under the establishment of the SDO (PWD), Thonoknyu w.e.f. 01.12.1991. Subsequently, vide an order dated 17.11.1993, the petitioner was temporary appointed as work-charged Office Peon in the scale of pay along with other allowances admissible. The petitioner continued to render his services and still is in service. In terms of the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act, 2009, the petitioner would be retiring on 30.04.2025. The case of the petitioner herein is that in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015, the petitioner is entit
The right to regularization of work-charged employees accrues upon completion of 30 years of service, necessitating timely action by authorities as per the Office Memorandum.
Court reaffirmed that failure to regularize an eligible employee's service constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
Employees who completed service requirements must be considered for regularization post-retirement under applicable state policies, including entitlement to benefits.
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.
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 ruled that past services of an employee cannot be disregarded for regularization if they meet the criteria set by government circulars and Supreme Court directives.
The court established that long-term service and existing vacancies can warrant regularization, even if initial appointments were irregular, provided the employees meet certain criteria.
The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to the Office Memorandum and the need for the respondent authorities to communicate the fate of the representations filed by the petitioners within....
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
