Meghalaya High Court
WP(C)/407/2018 of DEIGRACE BASAIAWMOIT Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 3 ORS. on 17 October 2024
List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 407 of 2018 Date of Order: 17.10.2024 ____________________________________________________________ Smti. Deigrace Basaiawmoit Vs. 1.State of Meghalaya, Represented by the D/o (L) L.Basaiawmoit Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya R/o.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Serial No.07 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYAAT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 407 of 2018
Date of Order: 17.10.2024
____________________________________________________________
Smti. Deigrace Basaiawmoit Vs. 1.State of Meghalaya, Represented by theD/o (L) L.Basaiawmoit Secretary to the Government of MeghalayaR/o. Forest Colony, Forests and Environment Department,Polo Ground, Shillong, Shillong.East Khasi Hills District,Meghalaya. 2. The Under Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Personnel & A.R. (B) Department, Shillong.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Hoff Meghalaya, Department of Forest & Environment, Shillong.
4. The Divisional Forest Officer, East Khasi Hills Territorial Division, Shillong.
….Petitioner.….Respondents.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. H. Nongkhlaw, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. P. Bhattacharjee, GA.
ORAL:-
Heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties.
The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by a communication made videOffice Memo No. F(PR)-76/2009/54 dated Shillong, the 22[nd] February 2010
whereby the State-respondents have taken a decision to regularize herservice w.e.f. 21.03.2016. The case of the petitioner is that she wasappointed as L.D.A. on compassionate ground in the office of the DivisionalForest Officer, East Khasi Hills Division, Shillong vide O.O. No. 63 dated16-06-1994 by the respondent No.3 and her service should have beenapproved/regularized w.e.f. the date of issue of the appointment order andnot from 21-03-2016. Mr. H. Nongkhlaw, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner contends that since the petitioner was appointed on compassionateground by order dated 16-06-1994, the regularization of her service w.e.f.21.03.2016, without assigning any reason thereof, is wholly unjustified andarbitrary and in defiance of settled norms of service law. It is the submissionof the learned Counsel that once the petitioner was appointed oncompassionate ground on a particular date, the approval of such appointmentcannot be made effective from subsequent date which is more than twodecades of her actual date of appointment.
Per contra, Mr. K. P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for theState-respondents submits that the initial appointment dated 16-06-1994suffers from many deficiencies, inasmuch as, the said appointment wasaccorded without submission of the requisite documents and papers by thepetitioner in terms of the stipulation made in the related scheme forcompassionate appointment. He further submits that since the originalappointment was not in accordance with the scheme for compassionateappointment, the communication dated 22[nd] March, 2016 by which thepetitioner’s service was regularized w.e.f. 21-03-2016 does not suffer fromany illegality or arbitrariness.
On the query of the Court as to what was the specific deficiency in theinitial appointment of the petitioner, the learned GA submitted that thepetitioner had not submitted any application in standard form addressed tothe Chief Secretary of the State as per requirement of the scheme of compassionate appointment. However, the learned GA is not in a position toclarify as to whether the petitioner had rectified the alleged deficiency priorto the regularization of her service w.e.f. 21.03.2016 by the State-respondents.
Prima facie, it appears that if non-submission of requisite form ofapplication was the reason for not according approval of the petitioner’sservice w.e.f. the date of issue of the appointment order, the State-respondentcould not have regularized her service without fulfillment of the deficiencyas pointed out by the learned GA. In such a situation, the State-respondentshould not have gone ahead with the decision to approve the service of thepetitioner. Since the State has taken a decision to approve the service of thepetitioner, it is assumed that the deficiency, if any, in this regard stoodrectified. However, there is nothing on record to justify as to why theapproval has been given w.e.f. 21.03.2016 instead of the date of appointmentof the petitioner.
At this stage, Mr. H. Nongkhlaw, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to approach therespondent authority by filing a fresh representation to the State-respondentfor redressal of her grievance. The learned GA has no objection to the prayermade.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty tothe petitioner to approach the respondent Authority by filing a representationseeking redressal of her grievance. In the event, the petitioner files any suchrepresentation, the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent No. 1,shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date of submission of the representation.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
No order as to costs.
Judge
Meghalaya17.10.2024“Biswarup PS”