Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 226 (GAU)

Paulao Konyak v. State of Nagaland

2017-02-21

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S. Serto, J. Mr. Kevi Angami, learned Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. Taka Kichu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 prays for passing over the matter for one week. Mr. Are long, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is urgency involved in this matter therefore, this may be passed over for the day at the most. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the parties in their affidavit-in-opposition, I am of the opinion that this matter may be disposed of by hearing it today itself. Therefore, the ld counsels are heard. The facts of the case may be stated briefly as follows:- 2. That the petitioner was initially appointed as Information Assistant on fixed pay of Rs.3500/- PM, by order dated 30/9/2003 issued by the Director, Department of Information and Public Relations w.e.f.1/10/2003, vide order No.PUB/E-4/2000(Pt). The appointment was purely on temporary basis and, it was as per the decision of High Power Committee. Since then, the petitioner continued in service, till one day, when he came to learn that his service was terminated w.e.f.1/9/2013 vide order No.DIPR/MON-2/2013-2014/409, dated 6/9/2013 of the Director, Department of Information and Public Relations. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.206(K)/2013 before this High Court and this High Court by order dated 26/3/2014 quashed and set aside the impugned order/termination order dated 6/9/2013. In compliance of the order of High Court, an order dated 20/5/2014, No. DIPR/MON-2/2013-2014/734 was issued by which the petitioner was reinstated in service. The same was, later, superseded by another order No. DIPR/MON-2/2013-2014, dated Nil, May 2014. 3. While the petitioner was serving as such, the respondent No.3 namely, Mr. P. Tepekrovi Kiso, who was also initially appointed as Information Assistant, on fixed pay of Rs.3500, vide order No.PUB/B-4/2000 (pt), dated 2/12/2003, but junior to him, was regularized vide order No. DIPR/E- 40/2013/772, dated 3/6/2014. After coming to know the regularization of the respondent No.3, the petitioner, submitted a representation dated 23/8/2015, before the competent authority, seeking regularization of his service and, the same was forwarded by the DPRO Mon, by his letter no. PUB/MON/ESTT- 17/2015-16/114, dated 25/8/2015. After coming to know the regularization of the respondent No.3, the petitioner, submitted a representation dated 23/8/2015, before the competent authority, seeking regularization of his service and, the same was forwarded by the DPRO Mon, by his letter no. PUB/MON/ESTT- 17/2015-16/114, dated 25/8/2015. Thereafter, the petitioner once again submitted a fresh representation on 13/10/2015, for regularization of his service, after he came to know that one of the incumbent of the post of Information Assistant was going to retire on 30/9/2015. The same was forwarded by the DPRO Mon, vide his letter No.PUB/MON/ESTT-17/103, dated 14/10/2015. However, ignoring his representation, one Mr. H. Vihepu Sumi, respondent No.4 was appointed to the post on contract basis, by order No.DIPR/E-40/2014-15/487, dated 3/12/2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, once again, submitted a representation dated 11/12/2015, for regularization of his service. 4. The case of the petitioner is that, people who were similarly situated like him have been regularized while his case has been ignored till today, therefore, a writ of mandamus or direction or order be issued so that his service may also be regularized. 5. I have gone through the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is stated at paragraph 6 that the petitioner's representations dated 23/8/2015, 13/10/2015 and 11/12/2015 are under consideration and are yet to be disposed by the respondents Department. 7. It appears from the above that the Government respondents are not averse to regularizing the service of the petitioner but they have just taken time to consider and to execute the same. 8. The fact that respondent No.3, who was similarly situated but, whose appointment on temporary basis was issued on a later date than the petitioner has been regularized, there is no reason why, the petitioner, should be ignored and not be given the same treatment, because equality demands that those who are similarly situated should be treated equally. Equality in matters of employment is one of the hallmark of our Constitution. Therefore, unless, the law specifically provides for the same, persons who are in similar situation should be or ought to be treated equally. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Government respondents should also consider the case of the petitioner and regularize his service as has been done in the case of similarly situated person. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Government respondents should also consider the case of the petitioner and regularize his service as has been done in the case of similarly situated person. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had also prayed for quashing the regularization of the respondent No.3 as it would create problem regarding seniority between him and the petitioner, therefore, the appointment/regularization order of the respondent No.3 needs to be quashed. However, this Court is not inclined to accept that submission, since the respondent No.3 have already joined the service and the issue of seniority can be settled as and when the petitioner is regularized in service. If any question arises as to the seniority between him and the respondent No.3, the petitioner can always come and approach this Court. 10. In view of what has been stated above, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, shall complete the process and, issue necessary order regularizing the service of the petitioner, as has been done in the case of the respondent No.3, within 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. With this, the writ petition is disposed of.