Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 284 (GAU)

Lalhnehliana Sailo v. State of Mizoram

2022-03-17

NELSON SAILO

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. Dinari T Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 13. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for respondent No. 14. [2.] By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are 25 in numbers have sought for a direction to the respondents to absorb them in their service in the line departments in terms of paragraph no. 4.2 of the Guidelines on DRDA Administration. [3.] Brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were appointed either as Assistant Engineer, Assistant Project Officer(M), Accounts Officer, UDC, LDC, Driver or 4th Grade between 30.11.2009 to 03.02.2017 on contract basis, on being recommended by the duly constituted Departmental Screening Committee/Selection Committee. It is the case of the petitioners that the Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India formulated guidelines on DRDA Administration starting from the year 1999 and thereafter, in the years 2002, 2008 and the modified provisions in the year 2018. As per paragraph no. 4.2 of the said Guidelines, the State Rural Development Department is required to draw up a 3 to 5 Year Plan for absorption of the staff into the line departments. Besides, the modifications in respect of other paragraphs of the Guidelines, the petitioners contend that paragraphs 4.2 & 4.3 has not been modified and they remain unchanged. Therefore, the State respondents are required to draw up the 3 to 5 Year Plan for their absorption. Aggrieved with the rejection of their representation submitted in this regard vide Communication dated 15.04.2021, the petitioners are before this Court. [4.] Mrs. Dinari T Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant writ petition in fact is a covered case, inasmuch as, similarly situated persons have been given the benefit of absorption in service in the line departments. In this connection, she refers to the Judgment & Order dated 22.07.2008 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 72/2006 Laldinpuii & 49 Ors. vs. State of Mizoram & 9 Ors. and also, Judgment & Order dated 22.11.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 175/2016 P.C Lallawmkima & 91 Ors. vs. State of Mizoram & 13 Ors. [5.] Referring to the above 2 (two) judgments, the learned counsel submits that this Court having regard to the specific provision provided in paragraph no. vs. State of Mizoram & 9 Ors. and also, Judgment & Order dated 22.11.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 175/2016 P.C Lallawmkima & 91 Ors. vs. State of Mizoram & 13 Ors. [5.] Referring to the above 2 (two) judgments, the learned counsel submits that this Court having regard to the specific provision provided in paragraph no. 4.2 of the Guidelines on DRDA Administration held that the State respondents were bound by the same and more particularly, keeping in view the fund provided by the Central Government in the ratio of 75:25 i.e. 75% of the fund from the Central Government and 25% of the fund from the State Government. Therefore, a direction was given to the State respondents to comply with paragraph 4.2 of the Guidelines within a time frame. Likewise, in the second case as well, the contribution of the Central Government and the State Government in the ratio of 90:10 was taken into consideration by this Court and accordingly, the State respondents were directed to take appropriate action for absorption of the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the instant petitioners are also no different and they are covered by paragraph no. 4.2 & 4.3 of the Guidelines and therefore, similar benefits have to be extended to them as well. She also submits that it is not the stand of the State Government that the petitioners have been illegally appointed or they have been appointed dehors the guidelines. A perusal of their respective appointment orders clearly goes to show that they all have been properly screened by the Selection Committee or Selection Board before their appointment. Therefore, they form a class of their own and unlike the Muster Roll employees who are engaged without any screening process. [6.] Mrs. Dinari T Azyu, by referring to the Notification dated 02.02.2018 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Rural Development Department which is annexed as Annexure-2 in the counter affidavit of the State respondents, submits that the petitioners may be appointed after the year 2008 but they are not appointed against the provisions of the DRDA Guidelines and therefore, the said notification does not cover the case of the petitioners. By referring to paragraph no. 4.3 of the DRDA Guidelines, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been appointed as permissible under the said paragraph. By referring to paragraph no. 4.3 of the DRDA Guidelines, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been appointed as permissible under the said paragraph. In the absence of any modification to the same as recent as in the year 2018, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their absorption in the line departments. Mrs. Dinari T Azyu also submits that the Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India as recent as on 17.01.2022 had written to the respondent No. 2 asking the said authority to draw up a 3 to 4 Year Plan for absorption of the staff working under the said Rural Development Department into the line department. She submits that this clearly shows that it is incumbent upon the State respondents to comply with paragraph 4.2 of the Guidelines even as on today. She submits that the Communication dated 17.01.2022 is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners. She thus submits that the respondents may be directed to absorb the petitioners in their service in the Line Department in terms of the DRDA Guidelines. [7.] Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate submits that the Notification dated 02.02.2018 clearly states that the employees under the DRDA appointed after 2008 being against the provision of the DRDA Guidelines, their absorption cannot be considered. The said notification has not been put to challenge by the petitioners and therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. She submits that the petitioners were all appointed after the year 2008 and accordingly, a reply to their Representation dated 27.09.2020 was already given. The learned Government Advocate thus submits that the writ petition therefore has no merit and the same should not be dismissed. [8.] Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC submits that although the respondent No. 14 has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition but having regard to the contents of the Communication dated 17.01.2022, a copy of which was addressed to her as well, Court may consider the same and pass orders as it deems fit. [9.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. [10.] As may be noticed, the prayer of the petitioners is for a consideration of their absorption in the line department in terms of paragraph no. 4.2 of the DRDA Guidelines. [9.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. [10.] As may be noticed, the prayer of the petitioners is for a consideration of their absorption in the line department in terms of paragraph no. 4.2 of the DRDA Guidelines. The stand of the State respondents, on the other hand, is that as they were appointed after the year 2008, they cannot be considered for their absorption. The Communication dated 17.01.2022 made by the Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India to the respondent No. 2 with reference to the present case filed by the petitioners is that in respect of the North Eastern States apart from the State of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the fund put in by the Central Government and the State Government is in the ratio of 90:10 (Central: State). The said communication also states that the State Government is required to follow guidelines of the DRDA Administration Scheme, more particularly, at paragraph 4.2 requiring the State Rural Development Department to draw up 3 to 5 Year Plan for absorption of the staff in the line department. It also states that the Ministry has been repeatedly writing to the State to initiate appropriate measures in conformity with the Guidelines of DRDA Administration Scheme. Further, a perusal of the modifications made as recent as in the year 2018 goes to show that there is no modification in respect of paragraph 4.2 & paragraph 4.3 of the Guidelines. The cut-off year of 2008 as referred to in the Notification dated 02.02.2018 in my considered view cannot be the ground to deny the petitioners from being considered for absorption as per paragraph 4.2 of the DRDA Guidelines. Undisputedly, the State Government continues to receive 90% of the fund towards the expenditure on the salary of employees and contingency to oversee the implementation of different antipoverty programmes of the Ministry of Rural Development. The matching share of the State Government, on the other hand, is only to the extent of 10%. Admittedly, the programmes cannot be implemented without the employees concerned and the employees cannot be continued to be engaged without any consideration for their absorption more particularly, when there is a scheme in this regard under the DRDA Guidelines. The matching share of the State Government, on the other hand, is only to the extent of 10%. Admittedly, the programmes cannot be implemented without the employees concerned and the employees cannot be continued to be engaged without any consideration for their absorption more particularly, when there is a scheme in this regard under the DRDA Guidelines. The Notification dated 02.02.2018 cannot come in the way for considering the petitioners for their absorption since they were duly recommended and appointed by due process and not dehors the DRDA Guidelines. The persons who are similarly placed were approached this Court through WP(C) No. 72/2006 and WP(C) No. 175/2016 have already been given the benefit of the Guidelines of the DRDA by absorbing them in the line department and therefore, the present petitioners cannot be treated differently or else, the same would amount to the infringement on their Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. [11.] In the result, I find the petitioners to have a legitimate grievance and moreover, I find their case to be covered by the earlier decisions of this Court as already referred to herein before. Accordingly, the State respondents are directed to take necessary steps to absorb the petitioners into the line department in terms of the Guidelines of the DRDA Administration within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [12.] With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.