Disposed

N. Dawtlai v. The State of Mizoram and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Nov 2022WP(C)/120/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a senior long-serving Muster Roll LDC, challenged regularization norms. Since she had not submitted a representation to the respondent authority for regularization consideration, the High Court disposed of the petition by directing her to file such representation within two weeks, with authorities to decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation for regularization within two weeks; respondent No. 3 directed to consider the claim and pass a reasoned order within two months.

N. Dawtlai Vs The State of Mizoram and 2 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC030004892022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/120/2022

¶5

N. Dawtlai D/o H. Thacho R/o New Colony, Siaha District, Siaha, Mizoram.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Mizoram and 2 Ors. Aizawl. 2:The Secretary to the GOM Finance Department Aizawl. 3:The Deputy Commissioner GOM Siaha District Siaha Mizoram

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Saurabh Pradhan

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1-R3

¶10

ORDER

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶12

02.11.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. Ricky Gurung, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.

¶14

Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents. Having regard to

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petitioner is disposed of at the motion stage.

¶17

[2.] The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Muster Roll LDC vide order NIL (Annexure-1) for 89 days with effect from 01.07.2003 – 28.09.2003. After the engagement period was over, her engagement against the said post continued by way of separate engagement card issued to her from time to time. The last engagement card being 26.02.2021 (Annexure-5).

¶18

[3.] The claim of the petitioner is that she having served as Muster Roll LDC for the last 19 years is eligible to the considered for regularization in terms of the Regularization of Muster Roll Employees Mizoram Scheme, 2000 (the Scheme). Referring to Clause 4 of the Scheme, Mr. Ricky Gurung, learned counsel submits that one is eligible to be considered for regularization after having completed 7 years of engagement on Muster Roll basis coupled with the fact that the employee concerned has satisfactory performance report for the last 5 years prepared by the Controlling Officer. Such regularization can be done against 25% of the vacant post under the direct recruitment quota.

¶19

[4.] The learned counsel submits that 2 (two) Muster Roll employees, who were senior to the petitioner have since been regularized and now the petitioner is the senior most Muster Roll LDC in the establishment of the respondent No. 3 and there being sufficient vacancies, a direction may be given to the respondent authorities to consider her case for regularization in terms of the Scheme.

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

[5.] On perusal of the writ petition, it is noticed that the petitioner has not submitted a representation before the respondent authority concerned to consider her case for regularization and such being the position, this Court is of the view that the same should be done by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondent No. 3 highlighting her claim for being regularized into service in terms of the Scheme within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today. The respondent No. 3 on receipt of the representation of the petitioner shall consider the same in terms of the relevant Scheme within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. It is also provided herein that if the consultations of the other Nodal Departments are required, the respondent No. 3 shall do so without delay and pass appropriate orders as already stated herein above.

¶22

[6.] It is needless to mention herein that if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he may approach this Court again, if so advised.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

N. Dawtlai v. The State of Mizoram and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Dawtlai v. The State of Mizoram and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalhnemi Vs Lalrinzuali and Anr.

Marina Laltlanmawii and 1231 others Vs State of Mizoram and 4 Ors.

K Sanglawma Vs State of Mizoram represented by Chief Secretary, Mizoram

Lawngtlai District Land Owner Association (Ldloa) Vs The State of Mizoram and 6 Ors.

Jessie Lalrintluanga r/b his father Sh. B. Lalruma Sailo Vs The State of Mizoram and 4 Ors.

Mamoni Konwar Vs Bamin Nime