JANARDAN JHA Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Heard Mrs. D. Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I. Jamir, learned Senior Govt. Advocate. The only claim of the petitioner in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is to regularise his service as Grade 1 Lineman which post he has been holding since 28.3.1989 and also consequently to regularise his entire service from initial entry into the State service as a labourer as far back as in 1967. In the present case, facts are not controverted. Facts may be briefly stated. The, petitioner was appointed as labour in 1967 as per the service book opened in 1969. On 21.2.69, the petitioner was appointed as work charged Jugali by Executive Engineer, Mokokchung. By another order issued by the Executive Engineer, on 12.2.72 the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Lineman. By yet another order issued on 28.3.89, the petitioner was further promoted to the post of work charged Lineman Grade I. The petitioner is still working as Grade I Lineman till today. It is averred that from his first entry into service, the petitioner was put in regular scale of pay. He has been given every annual increment from the very beginning till today. He has been further allowed to cross efficiency bar. At the same time the petitioner has rendered uninterrupted and continuous service. The petitioner is due to retire with effect from 11.11.1996. Mrs. D. Bedi, in the background that has been stated above, submits that the petitioner has put in life-long service. However, the service of the petitioner has ' not been regularised till today. If the service of the petitioner is not regularised, he will have served Nagaland for 27 years without any pensionary benefits.

(2.) Government has filed counter affidavit. Para 2 among other things states :

(3.) It may be stated that the rules referred to in this affidavit are Draft Rules. Strictly speaking, these Rules have not been brought into force. Further it is contended that the services of some juniors have already been regularised ignoring the claim of the petitioner. Mrs. D. Bedi states that no reason has been assigned why the case of the petitioner should be superseded in the matter of regularisation of service. It is also further submitted that throughout the length of service put in by the petitioner there has not been any adverse remarks against the service of the petitioner. Further it is also submitted that it will be extremely inhuman to have used the service of the petitioner for as long as 27 years without regularising the service rendered by the petitioner. Mr. I, Jamir, learned Senior Govt. Advocate submits that the regularisation of services of certain junior persons had been considered on merit and in accordance with the seniority list maintained by the department. In-my view unless there are certain reasons assigned to, such preference of regularising of services of the juniors, the claim of the petitioner could not have been ignored. In fact there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner in anyway incompetent or that he is otherwise not eligible for regularisation. On the contrary I must presume that there has been a continuous need of the service of the petitioner or else he would not have been allowed to serve 27 years without giving him pensionary benefits. It is also nowhere stated as to why the Draft Service Rules have not been brought into force, whereas the said Draft Service Rules are said to have been acted upon by the department. Para 3 of the Govt. counter further states :