ORDER

30.11.2022 Heard Mr. Victor L Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.

H Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents.

[2.] By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2022 (Annexure-6) and the Communication dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure-9) by which their representation has been rejected.

[3.] Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the writ petition is that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Public Works Department (PWD), on contract basis some time in the year 2010-2011. Their services were regularized vide Order dated 17.12.2018 with immediate effect against their appointed post. Subsequently, vide Office Order dated 29.11.2021, upon completion of their probation period, the petitioners were confirmed in service with retrospective effect from 17.12.2019 in respect of the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and w.e.f 18.12.2019 in respect of the remaining petitioners.

[4.] It is the case of the petitioners that vide Office Memorandum dated 24.08.2011 (Annexure-4), the Govt. of Mizoram in the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Administrative Reforms Wing) had issued the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) on the Government employees and the same came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2006. As per the said Scheme, more particularly at Clause No. 7, the services rendered on adhoc/contract/ officiating/deficit/work-charge basis followed by regular appointment in the substantive post without any break shall be taken into reckoning. The MACPS provides for three financial upgradation counting form the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 & 30 years service respectively.

[5.] Thereafter, vide Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2020 (Annexure- 5), the State Government in supersession of the MACPS 2010 issued on 24.08.2011 issued the MACPS 2020 and the same is to come into force with effect from the date of issuance of the Office Memorandum i.e. 01.06.2020. As per Clause 15 of Annexure-1 of the MACPS 2020, the service rendered on adhoc/contract basis, etc. followed by regularization/confirmation, without interruption of service, shall be taken into reckoning for the purpose of granting financial upgradation in respect of those who were regularized/confirmed before the effective date of the Scheme. Such being the prescription, the petitioners contend that they, having completed 10 years of service and, regularized on 17.12.2018 before the MACPS 2020 can be given financial upgradation as stipulated in Clause 1 of the MACPS 2020. However, vide Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2020, (Annexure-6), the State respondents in partial modification of the earlier Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2022 had made the MACPS 2020 applicable with retrospective effect from 01.09.2018. Such being the case, the petitioners will only be able to count one third of their past services in terms of Clause 16 of Annexure-1 of the MACPS 2020. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed their representation, which however, came to be rejected on 20.05.2022. Having no alternative, the petitioners are before this Court.

[6.] Mr. Victor L Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by introducing the impugned Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2020, the respondent authorities have deprived the petitioners of their accrued right to enjoy the financial upgradation on completion of 10 years of their entry into the service. He submits that the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2020, by which the petitioners were entitled to enjoy financial upgradation was issued in the name of the Governor of the State and therefore, the same could not have been modified by way of an executive instruction issued vide Office Memorandum dated 22.10.2020. He submits that the benefits derived and entitled to the petitioner in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2020 cannot be taken away in such a manner and that i