SHRI. LIPOKTEMSU v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 14 ORS
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2024-06-11. SHRI. LIPOKTEMSU v. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 14 ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/5 GAHC020005542021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/282/2021 SHRI. LIPOKTEMSU WORK-CHARGED HANDYMAN, OFFICE OF THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER, PWD, MECHANICAL DIVISION, KOHIMA, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 14 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, WORKS AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD(MECHANICAL) NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:SHRI. MEPONGTEMJEN HANDYMAN UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ASSTT. MECHANICAL ENGINEER(PWD) MOKOKCHUNG DIVISION MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 5:SHRI. JUSAHIE SOPFUNO HANDYMAN UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ASSTT. MECHANICAL ENGINEER(PWD) Page No. # 2/5 SUB-DIVISION KOHIMA NAGALAND 6:SHRI. KEYIELIE HANDYMAN UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ASSTT. MECHANICAL ENGINEER(PWD) MECHANICAL SUB-DIVISION KOHIMA NAGALAND 7:SHRI.
SASHIKUMZUK HANDYMAN UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ASSTT. MECHANICAL ENGINEER(PWD) MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 8:SHRI. H. WANGPA KONYAK HANDYMAN UNDER THE ESTABLISHEMNT OF ASSTT. MECHANICAL ENGINEER(PWD) MECHANICAL ENGINEER MON SUB-DIVISION MON NAGALAND 9:SHRI. TIAKUMZUK HANDYMAN UNDER THE ESTABLISHEMNT OF ASSTT. MECHANICAL ENGINEER(PWD) MECHANICAL SUB-DIVISION DIMAPUR NAGALAND 10:SHRI. A. AYIMBA AO HANDYMAN UNDER THE ESTABLISHEMNT OF ASSTT. MECHANICAL ENGINEER(PWD) MOKOKCHUNG SUB-DIVISION MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 11:SHRI. TIAKABA HANDYMAN Page No. # 3/5 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER(PWD) MECHANICAL KOHIMA NAGALAND 12:SHRI. IMRONGTUBA HANDYMAN UNDER THE ESTABLISHEMNT OF ASSTT. MECHANICAL ENGINEER(PWD) MON SUB-DIVISION NAGALAND 13:SHRI. YARCHABA HANDYMAN UNDER THE ESTABLISHEMNT OF ASSTT. MECHANICAL ENGINEER(PWD) MECHANICAL SUB-DIVISION MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 14:SHRI. DOVISE ANGAMI MECHANIC HELPER UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ASSTT. MECHANICAL ENGINEER(PWD) KOHIMA NAGALAN For the petitioner(s) : Mr. M.
Solo, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. E. Thiba Phom, Govt. Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 11. 06. 2024 Heard Mr. M. Solo, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as Work-Charged Handyman against the vacancy caused by Shri L. Tia Jamir, Work-Charged Handyman who resigned from service in a pay Page No. # 4/5 scale. Thereupon, the petitioner continued to render his service without any break. It is the case of the petitioner that the private respondents herein were junior to the petitioner, but they were regularized however depriving the petitioner of the benefit of regularization. 3. Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that in the meantime, the petitioner has already completed 30 years of service in view of the fact that he was appointed on 16. 05.
1994, that too, on a scale of pay. It has been duly submitted that in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17. 03. 2015 and more particularly Clause 1 (ii), those Work-Charged and casual employees in the scale of pay who have completed or would complete 30 years of continuous service after 01. 01. 2015, their cases for regularization would be taken up subsequently in two st st batches on the 1 of July and 1 of January every year. In view of the said extant policy which still holds the field, the petitioner herein is entitled to be considered for regularization in terms with Clause 1 (ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 17. 03. 2015 as he had completed 30 years of service as on 15. 05. 2024. 4.
Under such circumstances, taking into account the prayer which has been made in the instant proceedings and the specific submission made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has no quarrel with the regularization of the private respondents if the petitioner’s case is considered in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17. 03. 2015, this Court directs the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms Page No. # 5/5 with clause 1 (ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 17. 03. 2015. 5. The said exercise be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the respondent No. 3. 6. This Court further directs that upon submission of the certified copy of the instant order to the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 2 shall also do the needful so that the order passed herein is being complied with. 7.
In view of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.