Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 261 (GAU)

T. Lalvulliana v. State of Mizoram

2009-04-24

H.BARUAH

body2009
JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Laldinliana, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned Govt. Advocate for the State Respondents. 2. Taking into consideration of the prayer sought for in the present writ petition for a direction to the Respondents for retrospective regularization to the service as primary teachers with effect from the date of completion of the probation period mentioned in the initial appointment order and also the earlier judgment and order of this Court dated 20.8.2008 passed in W.P. (C) No. 83 of 2007, W.P. (C) No. 78 of 2007 and W.P. (C) No. 79 of 2007, this Court is of considered view that there is no point in proceeding further with the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. 3. The case of the writ Petitioner can be briefly stated as under: In the year 1999 for filling up of 19 regular vacant posts of Middle School Teacher in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- per month plus other allowances, the Respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement through Employment Exchange. The Petitioner having had the eligibility for the post submitted his application for appointing him in one of the posts so advertised. Written test was held on 13.8.1999. Thereafter the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred as to DPC) appointed the Petitioner to the post of Middle School Teacher vide office order under Memo No. A. 22014/2/2001 - DTE (EDS) dated 29.11.2001 at a fixed pay of Rs. 3500/- per month for a period of two years. In the said order it was also provided that on completion of the period of probation for two years, the Petitioner would be regularized subject to his satisfactory performance during the probation period. The Petitioner accordingly was discharging his duties on fixed pay to the satisfaction of the Respondent authorities. 4. It is contended that as the services of the Petitioner along with similarly situated colleagues were not regularized even after completion of their probation period satisfactorily, the Petitioner's colleagues had approach this Court by filling a joint writ petition being No. 50 of 2005 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 with a direction to the Petitioners to file representation to the concerned authority within three weeks and the concerned authority was to dispose of the same within one month. Accordingly the Petitioner's colleague in other words the similarly situated teachers submitted representation to the concerned authority on the basis of which the State Respondents decided that the school authority should initiate and submit a proposal to the Government, which would be examined as per established procedure. 5. Later on instead of regularizing the services of the Petitioner's colleagues the State Respondents had extended the period of probation and being aggrieved the Petitioner's colleagues again approached this Court by filling various writ petition which had been disposed by this Court with observation and direction that the case of the Petitioners therein would be considered on or before the expiry of the probation period, the Government being model employer is expected to take up the matter early and finalizing it an early date preferably within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of the order. 6. It is also the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 2 vide letter No. A.32013/9/2003-EDN dated 20.4.2007 addressed to the Respondent No. 3 had conveyed the Government's approval for regularization of the services of the similarly situated colleagues of the Petitioner with effect from 1.4.2007 without any arrears. In the said letter the Petitioner's name appears at Serial No. 7 of the Middle School Teachers. In pursuance of the said approval the Respondent No. 3 had passed order dated 10.5.2007 regularising services of the Petitioner in the scale of pay of Rs. 5500-9000/- per month with effect from 1.4.2007. 7. The Petitioner being aggrieved with the action of the Respondent authorities in not regularizing his services with retrospective effect from the date of his initial appointment or from the date of expiry of his probation period and without any service benefit like arrears of pay, increment of pay etc. filed this present writ petition. At this stage it would be appropriate that similarly situated colleagues of the Petitioner had also preferred a writ petitions on the same subject matter, which were registered as W.P. (C) No. 83 of 2007. W.P. (C) No. 78 of 2007 and W.P. (C) No. 79 of 2007 and allowed by this Court by a common judgment and order dated 20.8.2008. W.P. (C) No. 78 of 2007 and W.P. (C) No. 79 of 2007 and allowed by this Court by a common judgment and order dated 20.8.2008. One Smt. Lalduhawmi, a Middle School Teacher similarly situated also filed a writ petition being No. W.P. (C) 117 of 2008 and the same was disposed of at the motion stage vide judgment and order dated 1.12.2008. It is contended that this Court not only in the above writ petition directed the State Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner therein retrospectively but also in writ petition being Nos. 26 of 2009 and 27 of 2009 also directed the State Respondents to give retrospective regularization of the writ Petitioners therein at least from the date of expiry of the probation period. 8. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner that the case of the writ Petitioner being similarly situated with the case of the Petitioners of the W.P. (C) Nos. 83 of 2007, 79 of 2007, 78 of 2007, 26 of 2009 and 27 of 2009 and since the case of the writ Petitioner is squarely covered by the earlier judgments rendered in W.P. (C) Nos. 83 of 2007, 79 of 2007, 78 of 2007, 26 of 2009 and 27 of 2009 dated 20.8.2008 and 20.4.2009 respectively a direction to the Respondent authorities can also be issued to regularize the service of the Petitioner retrospectively at least on the expiry of two years of probation from the date of his initial appointment. The learned Govt. Advocate representing the State Respondents also concedes to the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Learned Govt. Advocate also concedes that the case of the writ Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments rendered in W.P. (C) No. 117 of 2008, W.P. (C) No. 26 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 27 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 83 of 2007, W.P. (C) No. 78 of 2007 and W.P. (C) No. 79 of 2007. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts and the documents annexed in support of the petition. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts and the documents annexed in support of the petition. Since the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment and orders passed in W.P. (C) No. 83 of 2007, W.P. (C) No. 78 of 2007, W.P. (C) No. 79 of 2007, W.P. (C) No. 117 of 2008, W.P. (C) No. 26 of 2009 and W.P. (C) No. 27 of 2009, dated 20.8.2008, 01.12.2008 and 20.4.2009 respectively, this Court finds no impediment to issue a similar direction to the Respondent authorities to regularize the services of the Petitioner, Middle School Teacher retrospectively at least from the date of expiry of 2 (two) years probation from the date of his initial appointment. Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to regularize the service of the Petitioner as Middle School Teacher retrospectively i.e. on the expiry of two years probation from the date of his initial appointment. 10. With the above direction this petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed