LURENA LYNGDOH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 as Laboratory Technician in the Department of Health & Family Welfare after being recommended by the Departmental Selection Committee. The services of the petitioner was then confirmed in the year 2019 by the Director of Health Services (MI), but strangely vide order dtd. 18/3/2023, the respondent No. 3 issued a list of adhoc appointees who were to be regularized and the name of the petitioner was on the said list. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order, is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

(2.) Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Snaitang, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had initially been appointed since 6/8/1993, and was confirmed vide order dtd. 24/1/2019. The petitioner he submits, serving against a permanent sanctioned post was given all the benefits accruing from her service such as ACPS etc. apart from the fact that from the date of initial appointment, she was placed in a regular scale of pay with usual allowances as permissible under the Rules. However, he submits the State respondents by the impugned order dtd. 18/3/2023, have shown her to be serving in an adhoc capacity and regularized by the said order. The learned Senior counsel submits that the placing of the petitioner in an adhoc status after confirmation in service, is clearly erroneous and illegal, inasmuch as, it will cause a severe impact on her services and accrued benefits, such as consideration of her length of service for the purposes of pension etc., He therefore, submits that the impugned order as far as it concerns the petitioner being irrational, is liable to be not be given effect to.

(3.) Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z.E Nongkynrih, learned GA for the State respondents submits that the post against which the petitioner was appointed was a temporary non-gazetted post which received sanction for permanent retention on 15/5/2015, and that though the petitioner was confirmed against the post, her services was regularized vide the order dtd. 18/3/2023 on completion of the Special Interview conducted by the Department Selection Committee, and as such her services are to be counted from the date of regularization. He submits that this being the position, the petitioner was not entitled to any further relief.