Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 39 (MEG)

Herman Break Lyngdoh v. State of Meghalaya

2022-03-09

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner's grievance is with regard to the rejection of his proposal for regularization of his service in the Public Works Department. 2. The petitioner as it appears from the materials on record was temporarily appointed as Section Assistant against a leave vacancy on 06.08.1988 by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (R&B), Nongstoin Division. Thereafter, that after serving for 2(two) months, the petitioner was then transferred and posted at Markasa Sub-Division and was appointed as Work Charge Section Assistant on 12.10.1988 and continued as such from the said date. 3. The State respondents on 31.01.2020 had undertaken an exercise for regularization of Workcharge Employees serving in the Public Works Department, and the petitioner's name along with others was also recommended for regularization from the date of his joining which was shown 16.08.1988. It appears however, certain questions cropped up with regard to the service of the petitioner and the Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Public Works (R&B) Department, Admn. Branch by the letter dated 15.05.2020, had communicated that the name of the petitioner be removed from the list approved by the Department for regularization, in view of the fact that his initial appointment was not as Workcharge Section Assistant but was in a temporary capacity. As such, in view of this development, the service of the petitioner was not regularized. 4. Mr. P.N. Nongbri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been deprived of his rightful benefits in view of the question as to whether he was a Workcharge employee, or he be regarded as temporary employee, when in fact he had been appointed as Work Charge Section Assistant since 12.10.1988. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has since retired on 30.06.2019, and in view of the impugned decision, he has not been given his dues and retiral benefits. 5. Ms. S. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the State respondents has however, produced a letter dated 02.07.2020, whereby the respondent No. 6 had re-submitted the petitioner's name along with Service Rolls to clarify the mode of appointment of the petitioner. This letter reveals that the contention of the petitioner is correct, inasmuch as, he was appointed as Work Charge Section Assistant on 12.10.1988. 6. This Court has considered the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. This letter reveals that the contention of the petitioner is correct, inasmuch as, he was appointed as Work Charge Section Assistant on 12.10.1988. 6. This Court has considered the materials on record and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the matter concerning regularization of the petitioner is to be looked at afresh by the respondents, inasmuch as, it is clear that he was serving as Work Charged Section Assistant from 12.10.1988, onwards. 7. Accordingly, the State respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner from the date of his appointment as Work Charged Section Assistant i.e. with effect from 12.10.1988. As the petitioner has already retired, if his services are regularized he will naturally be entitled to the retiral benefits, and other dues as admissible. It is expected that the entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously preferably within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. With the above noted directions, the instant writ petition is accordingly disposed of.