SIBLE SAYOO Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The grievance made in this writ petition is in respect of non-regularisation of the services of the petitioner. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a casual Mail with a fixed remuneration of Rs. 1200/- per month by order dated 2.12.1986. The petitioner, while she was continuing as such, by an office order dated 19.4.89 was allowed to officiate on temporary basis as a Mali in the scale of pay of Rs. 820- 1175/- per month. Her such appointment was against the resultant vacancy which occurred due to promotion of one Shri P Parang, Mali as Forest Guard. The appointment of the petitioner although was stated to be on temporary basis, her such appointment was not termed as an ad-hoc appointment. Her appointment was also against a regular resultant vacancy. Pursuant to the said order dated 19.4.89, the petitioner joined the post of Mali and had been discharging her duties till the order dated 11.7.94 was passed by which the services of the petitioner was terminated. In the said order, the appointment of the petitioner as Mali by the aforesaid order dated 19.4.89 was stated to be on ad-hoc basis, although the said order did not reflect the appointment of the petitioner to be on ad-hoc basis. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 62(SH) 1995. This Court initially provided interim protection of service and finally the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 29.5.95. By the said order, this Court provided that the appointment of the petitioner may not be disturbed and her case should be taken up for consideration in the next available vacancy. Now, by the present writ proceeding, the petitioner has made a grievance against the respondents alleging their inaction on the question of regularisation of the services of the petitioner.

(3.) The respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. Their basic theme in the affidavit is that necessary recommendations have akeady been made in favour of the petitioner towards regularisation of her services. However, the District Selection Committee is yet to regularise the services of the petitioner. As per Annexure E letter dated 29.9.93 issued by the Member Secretary, District Selection Committee and addressed to the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, referring to the request made for regularisation of the services of the petitioner and others, it was stated that such regularisation of their service would be in violation of the office memorandum dated 22.6.89 by which the need for regularisation of the services of the ad-hoc appointees was emphasised. As per the said office memorandum dated 22.6.89 the services of those ad-hoc appointees who were appointed prior to 1987 was to be considered for regularisation. Referring to the said office memorandum, the Member Secretary, District Selection Committee, in his letter dated 29.9.93 stated that in case of taking up the case of the petitioner and others for regularisation of their services, same would be violative of the said office memorandum of 1989 as it was a onetime exception so made in favour of the ad- hoc appointees. However, the said letter did not say anything as of whether the case of the petitioner was taken up for regularisation or not.