Cheery May Nongkhlaw vs The State of Meghalaya and Others

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. N.G. Shylla, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1-4. None appears for the respondent No. 7, inspite of proper service of notice of this present writ petition to her.

By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for a direction to the respondents to modify the inter-se seniority list of the staff of the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short ''CJM''), Shillong as on 05.12.2008 by placing the name of the petitioner above the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 in the seniority list. While the present writ petition is pending, the respondents No. 5 and 6 had expired. Accordingly, their names had been deleted from being respondents in the writ petition vide order dated 25.06.2014 passed in MC(WP(C) No. 178/2014.

The concise fact of the case sufficient for deciding the present writ petition is noted. The petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis for a period of three months w.e.f. the date of joining service vide order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Shillong dated 28.04.1988. It is also categorically stated in the present writ petition that the petitioner joined service on the very day of issuing the said appointment order on ad hoc basis by submitting a joining report dated 28.04.1988 to the District and Sessions Judge, Shillong. The copy of the said joining report dated 28.04.1988 is available at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. This fact of joining the service by the petitioner on 28.04.1988 is mentioned in para 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The respondent No. 2 had filed the affidavit-in-opposition wherein, the respondent No. 2 is not denying that the petitioner had joined her service on 28.04.1988. It is the further case of the petitioner that the term of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner had been extended from time to time and accordingly, the petitioner had been serving continuously from the date of initial appointment without any break till her ad hoc service had been regularized and the Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Law (A) Department under his letter dated 21.10.2008 also informed the CJM, Shillong that the service of the petitioner as Bench Assistant had been approved for regularization. The said letter of the Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Law (A) Department dated 21.10.2008, did not mention clearly from which date the service of the petitioner as Bench Assistant had been regularized. The petitioner filed a representation dated 22.10.2008 to the CJM, Shillong for regularizing her service w.e.f. the date of her initial appointment, so that she may be considered for further promotion to the vacant post of UDA. The Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Law (A) Department under his letter dated 26.11.2008 informed the CJM, Shillong that the date of regularization of the service of the petitioner as Bench Assistant will be w.e.f. the date of issue of department''s letter dated 21.10.2008. In other words, the service of the petitioner as Bench Assistant had been regularized w.e.f. 21.10.2008.

The CJM, Shillong prepared the inter-se seniority list of the staff of the office of the CJM, Shillong as on 05.12.2008 (impugned seniority list) wherein, the name of the petitioner had been placed at serial number 7, showing her date of joining the service at Column No. 3 of the said seniority list as 02.05.1988, below the private respondents i.e. 5, 6 and 7. In the said impugned seniority list, the dates of the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 joining the service had also been indicated and according to the impugned seniority list, the dates of the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 joining service are 30.04.1988, 04.04.2003 and 21.05.2007 respectively. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the impugned seniority list, the date of the petitioner joining the service is wrongly shown as 02.05.1988 and the correct date of the petitioner joining service is 28.04.1988. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that had the date of the petitioner joining service been shown correctly in the impugned seniority list, the name of the petitioner would have appeared above the respondent No. 5 F.L. Rani, who joined service only on 30.04.1988. Being aggrieved by the impugned seniority list, the petitioner had also filed the representation. It is further stated that as her representation was not fruitful, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

The stand of the respondent No. 2 i.e. Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Law (A) Department in his affidavit-in-opposition is that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 28.04.1988 for the period of three months and the respondent No. 4 filed the application for regularization of her service only on 14.08.2008. The respondents, after consideration of the said application for regularization filed by the petitioner, had regularized the service of the petitioner as Bench Assistant w.e.f. 21.10.2008. For the sake of repetition, it is reiterated that the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition, had not denied that the petitioner had joined her service as Bench Assistant on 28.04.1988.

The petitioner also filed reply affidavit dated 29.09.2014 wherein, the petitioner had categorically stated that in the case of other ad hoc/officiating appointees, their services had been regularized w.e.f. the dates of their initial ad hoc/officiating appointments. In support of that contention in the reply affidavit, the petitioner also annexed the tabulation wherein, the particular of the employee whose ad hoc or officiating services had been regularized w.e.f. the dates of their initial ad hoc or officiating appointments are mentioned. For easy reference, the said tabulation annexed to the reply affidavit is reproduced hereunder:-

Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing the attention of this Court to the said tabulation contended that ad hoc service of all the ad hoc or officiating appointees except the petitioner had been regularized w.e.f. the dates of their initial ad hoc/officiating appointments. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, it is not clear as to why the petitioner had been singled out in the matter of regularization of ad hoc service inasmuch as ad hoc/officiating appointment of her counter parts i.e. ad hoc or officiating employees had been regularized w.e.f. the dates of their initial ad hoc or officiating appointments. In such circumstances, it is left to the petitioner to file a representation to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Law (A) Department for treating the petitioner equally with her counter parts whose ad hoc/officiating services had been regularized w.e.f. the dates of their initial ad hoc/officiating appointments.

In the above factual backdrop, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a representation ventilating all her grievances to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Law (A) Department within a period of three weeks from today and the Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Law (A) Department on receipt of the said representation, shall consider and dispose of the said representation by passing a reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said representation.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.