High CourtsSingle Bench(2017) 06 MEG CK 0001

Pashmilla K.Marak D/o Sri. Ringjam Sangma vs State of Meghalaya represented by the Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel AR (B) Department, & Ors.

Meghalaya High Court · Decided on 2 June 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.R.Sen
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
128 of 2015

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

37 paragraphs · 666 words
1.

Heard Mrs. S.Bhattacharjee, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. H.Kharmih, learned State counsel on behalf of the State

respondents.

2.

The petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that

The petitioner is a Garo Schedule Tribe of Meghalaya and had applied for the post of Sweeper cum Cleaner through advertisement

dated NGH/DSC dated Williamnager, 1st Sept, 09. The petitioner for through the District Selection Committee and was

recommended by the Respondent No. 2 but the petitioner was not allowed to join when she went to join the said post as

recommended by the Respondent No. 2. Thereafter the petitioner filed representation before the Respondent No. 3 and being

aggrieved by the nonconsideration of her representation, the petitioner approached the Hon''ble High Court by filing the WP(C) No.

346/12 and the Hon''ble Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition with direction to consider the representation judiciously

within a month but unfortunately the petitioner did not receive any communication, which compelled her to file the contempt petition,

registered as Cop(SH) 8/2013 before the Hon''ble High Court. The respondent filed the Show Cause stating that as per

Advertisement dated 1.09.09 the post of Peon was not mentioned rather post of Sweeper cum Cleaner had been advertised and

such there is no violation of the Court order dated 14.12.12 and the contempt petition was disposed of on 24.9.13.

Thereafter the petitioner filed the W.P.(C) No. 355/2013 before the Hon''ble Court to ventilate her grievances, so as to get a

direction from the Hon''ble Court to accommodate her in any suitable post as per the Advertisement dated 1.9.09 but the petitioner

had to withdraw the said writ petition sometime in the month of October 2014 as the respondent vide Memo. No.

DERT/ADVT/1/2014/4 dated 17th Oct, 2014 appointed the petitioner as cleaner in the Office of the Directorate of Educational

Research and Training, Meghalaya.

Now the petitioner prays for a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to pay her salary, arrears with effect from the

date of recommendation (i.e.) 04.01.12 to 17.10.2014 which is the date of Appointment along with interest at the present Rate of

Interest.

Hence this petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was recommended by the District Selection Committee on 04-01-2012 but the

concerned office refused to give her appointment. Thereafter, she made a representation but the said representation was not addressed so she

approached this Court and after intervention of the Court, she was appointed on 17-10-2014 and continued her service till date. Learned counsel

also contended that she should get the salary for those period when she was initially recommended and also further submits that due to the error of

the administrator, employee should not suffer and in support of her case she placed on record the case reported in (1991)( 4 SCC 109 Union of

India and Ors vrs K.V.Jankiraman and Ors. I have perused the judgment and I am of the considered view that the judgment placed before me is

not exactly and totally applicable in this instant case.

4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, Mr. H.Kharmih submits that the post of Peon was not advertised by the District Selection Committee

but he could not satisfy this Court how and from where the petitioner was recommended. However, since petitioner is working, this court does not

want to disturb further and it is a settled principle of law of ""no work no pay"". However, it is also correct that due to the error or mistake of the

administrator, employee should not suffer.

5.

There are certain other questions raised by the learned State counsel, Mr. H.Kharmih that the post of Peon was not advertised and from where

the District Selection Committee recommended her was not known to him. Considering that she is already in service and getting her salary from the

day she joined, I am not interfering further.

6.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed and stands disposed of.