Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 647 (GAU)

Thanthuami & 4 Ors. v. State of Mizoram & 4 Ors.

2014-06-19

B.K.SHARMA

body2014
B.K. Sharma, J.:-- Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Deptt. None has appeared for the State respondents. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is the Annexure-17 and 18 orders dated 23.11.2011 and 24.11.2011, by which, the Government of Mizoram in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (ARW) ordered for maintaining common seniority in respect of Muster Roll employees working in different categories like Peon, Dak Runner, Plantation Mali etc. Following the Annexure-17 order of the DP&AR, the Government of Mizoram in the Environment & Forest Department advised the PCCF, Mizoram to rectify the inter-se seniority of unskilled Muster Roll employees before ordering for regularisation of their service (Annexure-18). Prior to issuance of the said impugned orders, in the seniority list prepared by the Department, the names of the Muster Roll workers (unskilled) had all along been maintained category wise, such as Peon, Boatmen, Sweeper, Duftry etc. In this connection the petitioners have referred to the Annexure-7 and 8 seniority lists. 3. As per the provisions of the scheme called Regularisation of Muster Roll Employees Mizoram Scheme, 2000, the Muster Roll employees in Grade-C and D categories working for at least 7 years shall be eligible for regularisation in a corresponding regular post prescribed for direct recruitment in the concerned Recruitment Rules subject to availability of vacancy. There was proposal for filling up of certain posts vide Annexure-13 order dated 2.9.2011. As indicated in the said proposal, there were 8 posts for LDC; 5 posts for Driver; 2 posts for Plantation Mali; 4 posts for Peon; 3 posts for Chainman and 2 posts for Dak Runner. According to the petitioners numbering 5, while the petitioners No.1 to 4 are working as Muster Roll Worker in the category of Peon, the petitioner No.5 is working as Dak Runner. However, when the name of the petitioner No.2 was shown as Sweeper, an objection was raised and thereafter vide a corrigendum dated 10.10.2011 (Annexure-10) issued by the PCCF, she was shown as Peon. A process for regularisation of service of the incumbents working as Muster Roll workers was taken up by the DPC in its meeting held on 9.11.2011. The DPC recommended for regularisation of services of the petitioners No.1, 2, 3 and 4 as Peon and that of the petitioner No.5 as Dak Runner. 4. A process for regularisation of service of the incumbents working as Muster Roll workers was taken up by the DPC in its meeting held on 9.11.2011. The DPC recommended for regularisation of services of the petitioners No.1, 2, 3 and 4 as Peon and that of the petitioner No.5 as Dak Runner. 4. When the matter rested thus and the petitioners were expecting regularisation of their services, the Annexure-17 order was passed by the DP&AR Department requiring the authority to prepare a common seniority list covering all the categories of Muster Roll Workers and to go for regularisation on that basis. Pursuant to the said order, the Government of Mizoram in the Environment & Forest Department issued the Annexure-18 letter dated 24.11.2011 to the PCCF, Mizoram requiring to prepare a common inter-se seniority list of unskilled Muster Roll Workers and then to proceed with the regularisation of their services. However, as will be evident from the aforesaid two impugned order and communication, while ordering for preparation of common seniority list covering all the categories of Muster Roll Workers, an exception was made by curving out the Plantation Mali and Driver. The department was advised to go ahead with the regularisation of services of Plantation Mali and Driver as was recommended by the DPC, but in respect of others, direction was given to prepare a common seniority list and then to proceed on that basis. 5. The impugned order and communication (Annexure-17 and 18) have been issued after the decision of the DPC referred to above recommending regulairsation of the services of the petitioners. Same does not appear to be on any valid policy decision of the Government. If for any reason, the Government decides to maintain common seniority list for all the Muster Roll employees irrespective of the categories they belong to and also irrespective of the sanction of posts category-wise a valid policy decision will have to be taken laying down applicable norms, yardsticks and parameters, which needless to say will have only prospective effect and cannot interfere with the recommendation of the DPC. 6. Above apart, if the posts have been sanctioned category-wise, they are also required to be filled up on that basis. In the event of preparation of common seniority list, irrespective of categories of posts, in that case a Muster Roll employee working as Peon could be regularised as Electrician and/or Duftry and vis-a-versa. 6. Above apart, if the posts have been sanctioned category-wise, they are also required to be filled up on that basis. In the event of preparation of common seniority list, irrespective of categories of posts, in that case a Muster Roll employee working as Peon could be regularised as Electrician and/or Duftry and vis-a-versa. Instead and subject to the above liberty, it will be appropriate for the respondents to maintain proportionate ratio while sanctioning posts so that all the categories get equal distribution towards regularisation of their services. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed interfering with the impugned Annexure-17 and 18 order and communication respectively with the aforesaid direction for maintaining appropriate ratio towards sanctioning of posts and regularisation of services of Muster Roll Workers category wise. 7. With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. -