Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 252 (MEG)

Sengseng M. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2022-09-19

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to the donation of land by the Nokma of Bawe Duragre for construction of a Permanent Augmentation Project of Simsanggiri Water Supply Scheme, in the year 1997 an agreement was sought before the construction of the said Project, that employment be provided to the close relatives/son and son-in-law of the headman. The further case of the petitioner is that vide the appointment letter dated 26.07.2013, he was appointed as Khalasi in the said Project, and after serving over 8 years he has been appointed as work charge Khalasi in the same Project. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner however is with regard the non-regularization of his services on the ground that though donation of the land had been made, and apparently a pension Account was created, the petitioner is yet to be accorded regularization in the post of Khalasi. 3. Mr. S. Sen, learned Sr. GA submits that for the claim of appointment against the donation of land by any entity or person, the State respondents have executive instructions in the form of Office Memorandum dated 30.08.2017. This Office Memorandum while amending the earlier policy, clearly states that, where private land owners have donated land free of cost for Government purpose, the same is to be handed over through a registered deed, to enable the Government to provide appointment to any persons, as recommended by the land owners in Grade-III or Grade-IV posts. Learned Sr. GA further submits that it has also been provided that on the retirement/demise of the said person, the vacancy will be filled up through normal recruitment. 4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined the materials on record, it appears that though donation of the land as stated is not disputed, the only issue which remains in contention is that the process is yet to be completed as per the stipulated policy which would enable the State respondents to accord regularization to the service of the petitioner. 5. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that this matter can be closed and disposed of with directions to the parties, especially the petitioner to complete the required formalities as provided in the Office Memorandum, to enable the State respondents to accord regularization of the service of the petitioner against the said post. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that this matter can be closed and disposed of with directions to the parties, especially the petitioner to complete the required formalities as provided in the Office Memorandum, to enable the State respondents to accord regularization of the service of the petitioner against the said post. 6. With the above noted directions, this writ petition stands closed and is accordingly disposed of. 7. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall continue in the said post.