LALREMTLUANGI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr L. H. Lianhrima, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for the State Respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Nursing Assistant in the Scale of pay of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/- per month plus other allowances as admissible under the rules from time to time against the existing vacancy of Nursing Assistant under 2nd I. R. Bn, Aizawl vide Office Order dated 19. 2. 2003 issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Police-I, Mizoram. She joined in the aforesaid post and has been working regularly till this day. The post against which the petitioner was appointed, was created by the Govt. of Mizoram vide Order No. A. 12028/6/96-HMP dated 13. 11. 2000. There is only one post of Nursing Assistant and the Pay Scale for the said post is fixed at Rs. 3050-4590/- per month. In the meantime, the Government of Mizoram framed the "mizoram Police Department (Group 'c' post)" Recruitment Rules, 2001 (Recruitment Rules in short) which was notified in the official Gazette dated 19. 10. 2001. The aforesaid Rules came into force on the date of its publication in the official Gazette. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed after the framing of the aforesaid Rules and as such she is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- per month as prescribed for the post of Nursing Assistant/health Worker as provided under the aforesaid Rules. The petitioner submitted a representation before the authorities concerned claiming pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- per month as per the Recruitment Rules. The same having not being considered, the petitioner had to approach this Court earlier in W. P. (C) No. 110 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 17. 11. 2008 with direction to the authorities/respondents to dispose the petitioner's representation, if any, and communicate the result to the petitioner with reason thereof.

(3.) IN compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondent Director General of Police considered the petitioner's representation and disposed of the same vide Order No. E. PHQ/a-108/v-III/218 dated 16. 2. 2009 rejecting his claim. The ground for rejection is quoted below:-