SHILLONG, India, April 14 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on March 12:
1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 as Laboratory Technician in the Department of Health & Family Welfare after being recommended by the Departmental Selection Committee. The services of the petitioner was then confirmed in the year 2019 by the Director of Health Services (MI), but strangely vide order dated 18.03.2023, the respondent No. 3 issued a list of adhoc appointees who were to be regularized and the name of the petitioner was on the said list. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order, is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition.
2. Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Snaitang, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had initially been appointed since 06.08.1993, and was confirmed vide order dated 24.01.2019. The petitioner he submits, serving against a permanent sanctioned post was given all the benefits accruing from her service such as ACPS etc. apart from the fact that from the date of initial appointment, she was placed in a regular scale of pay with usual allowances as permissible under the Rules. However, he submits the State respondents by the impugned order dated 18.03.2023, have shown her to be serving in an adhoc capacity and regularized by the said order. The learned Senior counsel submits that the placing of the petitioner in an adhoc status after confirmation in service, is clearly erroneous and illegal, inasmuch as, it will cause a severe impact on her services and accrued benefits, such as consideration of her length of service for the purposes of pension etc., He therefore, submits that the impugned order as far as it concerns the petitioner being irrational, is liable to be not be given effect to.
3. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z.E Nongkynrih, learned GA for the State respondents submits that the post against which the petitioner was appointed was a temporary non-gazetted post which received sanction for permanent retention on 15.05.2015, and that though the petitioner was confirmed against the post, her services was regularized vide the order dated 18.03.2023 on completion of the Special Interview conducted by the Department Selection Committee, and as such her services are to be counted from the date of regularization. He submits that this being the position, the petitioner was not entitled to any further relief.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court in consideration of the facts and on examination of the materials, notes that from the time of initial temporary appointment which was by way of a Departmental Selection Committee, the petitioner has been afforded all the trappings of regular employment i.e. applicable pay scale, allowances and in the course of service also given benefits under the ACPS. The confirmation granted on 24.01.2019, was also by the competent authority against a permanent sanctioned post, and as such therefore, there was no element of the employment being adhoc or temporary in nature. The impugned order dated 18.03.2023, regularizing the petitioner therefore, would amount to just a formality considering the fact that in the normal course of employment, an employee is confirmed after regularization.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqGxSoTMlR2IgxvGn%2FdYle%2Bu7Ibt0vyPNOGLFSu5LrwVu&caseno=WP(C)/414/2024&cCode=1&cino=MLHC010013272024&state_code=21&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
