MARGARET WANRAP Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions are interrelated each other and involved common question of facts and laws and that being the position these are taken up together for hearing at this stage. Considering the fact that these three writ petitions can be disposed or finally at this stage, these are disposed of accordingly with the following common judgment and order.

(2.) The petitioners Smt Margaret Wanrap in WP(C)No. 195 (SH)2002. Shri Kosparland Lyngdoh in WP(C) No. 196(SH)2002 and Smti. Prisca Lyndoh in W.P.(C)No. 197 (SH)2002, are the Grade IV employees under the Public Works Department (for short 'PWD') who have rendered their services since 1997 1984 and 1990, respectively. Their grievance is that the Grade IV employees including the petitioners in P.W.D. Govt. of Meghalaya have no promotional avenue/opportunities but in other departments like Secretariat Administration Deptt. (for short 'SAD'), Government of Meghalaya, those Grade IV employees have promotional avenues/ opportunities to the post of LDA, Duftry, Record Supplier, Typist, etc. and their services are governed by the Meghalaya Subordinate Service Rules, 1973 (for short "Rule of 1973") as amended upto date.

(3.) Supporting the case of the petitioners, Mr Mahanta, learned counsel, has drawn my attention to certain documents appended to the writ petition in WP(C) No. 196(SH) 2002, pertaining to the amalgamation of the services of the Grade IV staff of PWD Secretariat with that of the Grade IV staff of Meghalaya Secretariate (Civil) as seen in the documents marked as Annexures-8,11 and 12 to the writ petition WP(C)No. 196(SH) 2002 and submitted that the Government had initiated the process for amalgamation of services of Grade IV staff of PWD Secretariate with that of the services of the Grade IV staff of Meghalaya Secretariate (Civil) inasmuch as the authorities have taken steps to the stage that services of the Grade IV staff of PWD Secretariate shall be amalgamated so as to enable them to get promotion to the post of LDA under SAD as provided under Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1973. According to me, submission of Mr Mahanta to supported by the document marked as Annexures-8, 11 and 12 to the said writ petition as the authority concerned has failed to take up effective measures in the matter these petitioners approached this Court by filing these writ petitions with the prayer for a direction to the respondents to consider at least for one promotional avenues to the pettioners.