VANRAMNGHAKI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners are working on adhoc basis in the Office of the State Social Welfare Board, Mizoram, (briefly MSSWB?) as clerical staff and Voluntary Action Bureau (VAB). THE writ petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 were appointed on temporary and fixed pay basis as LDC, Accounts Clerk and Peon on 1.11.1988, whereas, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Counsellor, VAB on 06.10.1998. THE petitioner No. 5 was appointed as PA to the Chairman on 02.06.1989 and the petitioner Nos. 6 and 8 were appointed as Typists on adhoc basis and fixed pay, on 24.02.1994. In this way, atleast 5 (five) petitioners are working under the MSSWB since more than 20 (twenty) years and the remaining petitioners are also working since more than 10 (ten) years. For a limited period, the petitioners received 50% of the regular pay but for want of procedural formalities the petitioners were again brought back to the status of fixed pay employees. This situation has been created for non-regularization of the services. All the concerned departments of the State Government as well as that of the Central Government are passing the buck on each other and blaming one another for not making their stand clear. Resultantly, the petitioners have been squeezed for no fault on their part.

(2.) IN between this period, the petitioners? services were once regularized by the respondent No. 6 vide Order dated 12.05.2010. However, the Government of Mizoram, through the respondent No. 3, requested the MSSWB to cancel the regularization order vide Order dated 13.08.2010. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners? services were regularized under order dated 12.05.2010 with a rider that although the regularization was with effect from 01.04.1999 but the pecuniary benefits will be available only w.e.f 01.04.2010. Hence, the writ petitioners are also challenging this order so as to direct the State respondents to give retrospective regularization for all purposes. Similarly, the order of the State Government communicated by the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department on 13.08.2010 to the MSSWB to cancel the regularization order has also been challenged.

(3.) HAVING regard to the increased area of services, rendered through the Social Welfare Boards, the Government of India decided to restructure and strengthen the Boards with additional staff with a policy decision that 50% of the financial expenditure on pay and allowances shall be borne by the State Government. Accordingly, the MSSWB submitted a proposal of additional posts with all justification to the respondent No. 7 vide their letter dated 21.04.1987. On receipt of the said proposal the Central Social Welfare Board (respondent No.7) had conveyed their approval for appointment of 6 (six) staff vide letter dated 04.08.1988. On that basis, these writ petitioners were appointed on different dates. The other 2 (two) writ petitioners were appointed against the vacancies created by previous incumbents. 5.1 After various correspondences, the Central Social Welfare Board (respondent No. 7) informed the MSSWB vide letter dated 25.06.1999, that the proposal for regularization of adhoc employees has been forwarded to the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of India, but it is subject to the willingness of the State Government to regularize the posts and bear 50% expenditure of these posts. It was followed by the State Government?s letter dated 10.03.2000, issued by the Social Welfare Department to the respondent No. 6 about the willingness of the State Government to share 50% expenditure for adhoc employees and VAB. This communication was accompanied by budgetary estimate on the basis of regular pay scale. On receipt of the letter dated 10.03.2000, the respondent No. 7, the Central Social Welfare Board informed the MSSWB that the proposal of regularization of adhoc employees was forwarded to the Central Government vide their communication order dated 13.10.2000. Thereafter, the Central Welfare Board sought for further details with regard to adhoc employees vide letter dated 28.12.2001 and the details were furnished to respondent No. 7 on 16.01.2002. Once again, the respondent No. 7 sought further details of adhoc staff for the purpose of regularization vide letter dated 18.11.2004 and the necessary informations were forwarded to the respondent No. 7 by the respondent No. 6, vide letter dated 29.11.2004. Thereafter, there was no further written communication from the Central Social Welfare Board or from the Government of India. However, the MSSWB continued to pursue the matter by sending various reminders. 5.2 With a view to get the adhoc employees regularized the then Chief Minister of Mizoram stepped in. The Hon?ble Chief Minister also wrote a DO letter to the Union Minister of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, on 10.02.2006, reiterating the Government?s commitment to bear 50% expenditure on pay and allowances of the adhoc employees after their regularization. In this letter from the office of the Chief Minister, it was made clear that the State Finance Department had all along released 50% of the expenditure, starting from the financial year 1999-2000. The Chief Minister?s DO Letter was also forwarded by the MSSWB to the respondent No. 7 on 14.02.2006. 5.3 Continuing its endeavour for regularization of the adhoc employees with the Central Government, the MSSWB again wrote a letter to the Director of Social Welfare Department (respondent No. 5), Government of Mizoram, on 22.05.2006, requesting it to take up the matter with the concerned authorities. Pursuant to the said letter, the respondent No. 5 requested the MSSWB to furnish the copies of the orders of creation of posts and appointment orders to consider the proposal for regularization of adhoc employees. All the details were furnished to the office of the respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 12.07.2006. Thereafter, the Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms (ARW) approved the proposal of the MSSWB for regularization of adhoc staff vide their communication dated 01.02.2008. However, in its letter, the Social Welfare Department was given an advisory to obtain concurrence from the Finance Department. Instead of obtaining financial concurrence, the State Social Welfare Department informed the MSSWB, vide letter dated 28.03.2008, that regularization of the adhoc employees is not advisable as they are outside the Government. In view of this letter, the MSSWB took a decision in their meeting dated 30.10.2008 to regularize the petitioners. The resolution was reiterated in the meeting dated 23.03.2010. On the basis of these resolutions, Office Order dated 12.05.2010, was issued by the MSSWB, regularizing the services of the petitioners with certain stipulations, already noted at the outset of the judgment. Subsequent to the regularization order, the Mizoram Social Welfare Department (respondent No. 3) directed the respondent No. 6 to cancel the regularization order, since it did not conform to the Finance Department?s instructions in the letter dated 27.08.2008.