GANGTOK, India, May 11 -- Sikkim High Court issued the following judgment/order on April 8:

1. CX, Gangtok Division, Sikkim (Respondent No.03). Her engagement came to an end in May, 2023 (as submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner). She has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner who has completed more than 36 years of service with retrospective effect.

(ii) A writ or order or direction or declaration that the petitioner is entitled for regularization of her service with retrospective effect i.e. 1994 under the scheme of "Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme of Government of India, 1993" with all consequential benefits.

(iii) A Writ or order or direction or declaration that the claim of the petitioner for appointment/regularization of service shall be duly considered with effect from the year 1997 and shall be given respective ranks and service benefits on her appointment and/or her services may be regularized with effect from the respective date when she had initially joined in service as full time farash cum safaiwala with effect from 01.09.1994 when other employees similarly circumstanced with her were regularized and/or from a reasonable date;

(iv) To grant all the consequential reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled for.

(v) A writ or order or direction or declaration that the seniority of the petitioner in the respective posts and ranks in the regular establishment shall be maintained by the respondents.

(vi) Cost of the proceedings;

(vii) Any other writ or order or direction or declaration as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondents, it is stated that the Petitioner was engaged w.e.f. 01.09.1994; however, there is no specific denial of the claim made by the Petitioner in the writ petition that she had been engaged from 1984 onwards, except for the contention that her claim of having worked since 1984 is not supported by any document.

3. The Petitioner claims that she ought to have been regularized in light of the Scheme introduced by the Central Government in the year 1993. The Scheme is called the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993.

4. The question is whether the Petitioner is entitled to regularization in light of the aforesaid Government Scheme. As seen from the Scheme as well as from the counter-affidavit, temporary status or regularization was granted as a one-time measure under the Scheme, 1993, only to those persons who were engaged prior to 1992 and had worked continuously for at least one year. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner was engaged as a full-time Safaiwala from 01.09.1994 on a "no work no pay" basis (on voucher payment basis) in the Gangtok Range Office. It is also admitted that prior to being engaged as a full-time Safaiwala, she was engaged only as a part-time Safaiwala (04 hours a day). It is not discernible from the records produced that whether the Petitioner had worked prior to 1992 continuously for at least one year. However, the Petitioner made another claim based on a judgment of the Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others v. State of Jharkhand and others1 .

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcs.gov.in/hcs/hg_orders/201100000102023_23.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.