High Court of Meghalaya
Date Of Decision: 03.09.2024 vs The State Of Meghalaya on 3 September, 2024
2024:MLHC:807
Serial No.29
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C). No. 359 of 2023
Date of Decision: 03.09.2024
Smti. Meri-Iooka Iongwai.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Meghalaya,
Represented by the Chief Secretary.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary to
The Govt. of Meghalaya,
Personnel & A.R.(B) Department,
Shillong.
3. The Under Secretary to the Govt. of
Meghalaya, Personnel & A.R.(B) Department,
Shillong.
4. The Deputy Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya,
Personnel & A.R. (B) Department,
Shillong.
5. The Commissioner of Division East &
West Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills &
R-Bhoi District, Meghalaya,
Shillong.
6. The Deputy Commissioner,
Jaintia Hills District, Jowai.
...Respondents
Coram:
1
2024:MLHC:807
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Chief Justice (Acting)
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. C.C.T.Sangma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.Syngkon, GA
Ms. Z.E.Nongkynrih, GA
Mr. A.Momin, GA.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The writ petitioner is before this Court praying for regularizing the
service of the petitioner w.e.f. 27-08-2007 with all consequential benefits,
inasmuch as, the regularization which has been accorded has been made
w.e.f. 21-10-2022.
2. The brief facts surrounding the case are that the writ petitioner was
initially temporarily appointed on adhoc basis against a vacancy of LDA. It
appears that while the petitioner had continued as such, on subsequent
renewals, on a request of the Chief Secretary dated 02-05-2002, whereby
the list of adhoc appointees were called for, the name of the writ petitioner
along with other similarly situated adhoc appointees was provided.
However, nothing transpired till 08-09-2006 when a revised list of adhoc
appointees was again submitted to the Personnel & A.R. (B) Department.
On 19-10-2006, it was communicated to the Deputy Commissioner that as
2024:MLHC:807
the names furnished had not been received by the Department i.e.,
Personnel & A.R.(B) Department, the names of the adhoc appointees
including the writ petitioner could not be put up before the Cabinet for
approval for regularization. As such, the services of the petitioner, due to
the intervening circumstances, was not considered for regularization by the
Cabinet in the year 2007. It was only on the second round when a similar
exercise was conducted in the year 2022, whereby vide order dated 23-06-
2022, when the name of the petitioner was then considered and regularized
by the Cabinet on 15-03-2022.
3. Mr. C.C.T.Sangma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
through no fault of the petitioner, the regularization which should have
been accorded as far back as 27-08-2007 was denied due to laches on the
part of the respondents. He further submits that due to this action or
inaction, the petitioner has lost her seniority and as such has been denied
the opportunity for promotion to a higher post. He therefore submits that as
is apparent from the materials placed on record, that the regularization
should have been accorded from 2007, he prays that the retrospective
regularization be allowed to the writ petitioner.
4. Mr. N.Syngkon, learned GA on behalf of the State respondents has
submitted that notwithstanding the change of events as is evident from the
materials on record, the fact that cannot be ignored is that the writ
petitioner has subjected herself to a special selection when the second
2024:MLHC:807
exercise had been conducted on the approval of the Cabinet being
received. Learned GA has also submitted that after the special interview,
the petitioner along with other similarly situated appointees have been
regularized w.e.f. 21-10-2002, and that as per the conditions contained
therein, they shall not lay claim to seniority prior to the date of
regularization i.e. 21-10-2022, but however, the period of adhoc
appointment will be taken into consideration for the purpose of leave, pay,
increment, pension etc, as per existing provisions. He however, submits
that the petitioner having received adequate relief, no case is made out for
interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is noted and as
submitted that as far back as 2002, the list of adhoc appointees in the
establishment of the Deputy Commissioner of the then Jaintia Hills District
had been submitted in the Personnel Department, wherein the question of
adhoc appointment had been put under review. Though the said list was
submitted, however, due to the same not being received or recorded for
whatever reasons, the case of the petitioner never came up for
consideration or any orders passed on the said adhoc appointment as had
been mooted by the W.T.Message dated 02-05-2002.
6. As observed earlier, in the year 2006, the revised list of adhoc
appointees was again submitted and the same was put up for consideration,
but however, it appears the list of adhoc appointees from Jaintia Hills
2024:MLHC:807
District were not on record before the concerned respondents which
therefore excluded the writ petitioner from being considered again. The
case of the petitioner as such, centres around the fact that a positive
outcome would and could have been possible in the decision taken by the
Cabinet on 27-08-2007 with regard to regularization of their services if the
names had been put up for consideration. Looking into this fact, the same
cannot be denied, but however, as much water has passed under the bridge,
coupled with the fact that the petitioner has since subjected herself to a
special interview as given in the order dated 23-06-2022, whereby certain
conditions have been provided for approval of regularization, in the
considered view of this Court at this stage, what has transpired cannot be
undone, and as can be seen from the order of regularization dated 06-12-
2022, the petitioner has been allowed all other service benefits except
seniority which is to be counted from the date of regularization.
7. In this view of the matter therefore, no interference is called for and
writ petition is closed and disposed of.
Chief Justice (Acting)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
