Allowed

Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara v. Dr. Lairuatpuli Hiawnmual and 9 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Aug 2025WA/236/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed the appellant's writ appeal against a single judge's order quashing his absorption in the Mizoram Health Service. The court held that the relaxation of service rules under Rule 30 was not arbitrary, justified by service exigency, family hardship, and proper consultation with the Public Service Commission. The absorption was ratified.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Single Judge was set aside and the appellant's absorption in the Mizoram Health Service was ratified.

Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara Vs Dr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/14

GAHC010175632018

2025:GAU-AS:10389

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

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO.236 OF 2018

¶6

Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara Son of C. Laldanga, Resident of Mission Vengthlang, Aizawl, Mizoram.

¶7

… .. Appellant

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

Dr. Lairuatpuli Hiawnmual,

¶10

Wife of Jims Lalsangzuala, Resident of Zarkawt, Aizawl, Pin – 796001.

¶11

Dr. Vanzarlianai, Daughter of Dr. Vanlalsiama, Resident of Mission Veng, Aizawl, Pin – 796001.

¶12

Dr. Malsawmtluangi Ralte, Wife of R. Zoremsiama, Resident of Durtlang Leitan, Aizawl, Pin – 796001.

¶13

Dr. Lalhriatzuali Ralte, Wife of R. Lalthazuala, Resident of Zonuam, Aizawl, Pin – 796001.

¶14

The State of Mizoram, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Aizawl.

¶15

The Secretary, Dp & Ar, Government of Mizoram, Aizawl.

¶16

The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Mizoram, Aizawl.

¶17

Page No.# 2/14

¶18

The Principal Director, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Mizoram, Aizawl.

¶19

The Mizoram Public Service Commission, represented by its Secretary.

¶20

The Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, C.i.g. Marg, New Delhi – 110002.

¶21

… ..Respondents

¶22

– B E F O R E –

¶23

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶24

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Saikia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, Advocate.

¶25

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. : Ms. P. Bhattacharya, Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for respondent Nos.5 to 8.

¶26

Date of Hearing : 07.08.2025. Date of judgment : 07.08.2025 .

¶27

J UDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶28

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶29

Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Advocate for the appellant; Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/writ petitioners and Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondent Nos.5 to 8/State.

¶30

Page No.# 3/14

¶31

2. The appellant has questioned the judgment & order dated 10.07.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Aizawl Bench) in WP(C) No.29/2016, whereby the absorption of the appellant in the Mizoram Health Service has been held to be de hors the Mizoram Health Service Rules, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 2009”) and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

¶32

3. The learned Single Judge has directed the State respondents to take steps for repatriation of the appellant to his parent Department if his term of deputation is over or unless his period of deputation is extended as per law.

¶33

4. 4(four) Medical Officers (Grade-II) under General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO) Sub-Cadre of Mizoram Health Service had challenged the Notification No.A.35018/1/ 2015-HFW dated 01.09.2015, whereby the appellant was absorbed to Grade-I of Mizoram Health Service under GDMO Sub-Cadre, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Mizoram on permanent basis with effect from 15.11.2015, in the Scale of Pay Band-3, Rs.15,600 – Rs.39,100/- + Grade Pay of Rs.7,100/-.

¶34

5. The appellant had been working as Insurance Medical Officer (Grade-I) under the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as “ESI Corporation”). He was deputed to the Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Mizoram, for a period of 3(three) years and was posted at Civil Hospital, Aizawl.

¶35

6. After the completion of 3(three) years on deputation, on a representation made by the appellant for his absorption as a regular employee under the Mizoram Government, his deputation was extended for a further period of 1(one) year with effect from 11.05.2014 to 10.05.2015.

¶36

Page No.# 4/14

¶37

7. Before the expiry of the extended period of 1(one) year, another representation was filed by the appellant, seeking absorption as a regular employee of the Government.

¶38

This representation was forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Mizoram. While forwarding the request of the appellant, the Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare Department noted that the appellant had tendered great efforts to ensure successful implementation of both Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) and Mizoram State Health Care Scheme.

¶39

8. The Government of Mizoram, after duly examining the request of the appellant, sought the permission of the ESI Corporation for issuing No Objection Certificate (NOC) for absorption of the appellant in the Mizoram Health Service, which permission/NOC was granted by the ESI Corporation.

¶40

While making such a request, the good performance of the appellant, his family problems and the approval of the Hon’ble Minister of the Department was also considered.

¶41

9. Thereafter, as it appears from the records, the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (General Service Wing), Government of Mizoram, submitted a proposal to the Secretary, Mizoram Public Service Commission, Aizawl, seeking its comments on the absorption of the appellant.

¶42

The Mizoram Public Service Commission concurred with the proposal of the Government for relaxation of the Recruitment Rules for absorption of the appellant in Mizoram Health Service. Thereafter, the Recruitment Rules dated 24.08.2015 [Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 2009] were relaxed for absorption of the appellant to Grade-I under GDMO Sub-Cadre of Mizoram Health Service.

¶43

Page No.# 5/14

¶44

10. It was only thereafter, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant, that the Health & Family Welfare Department came out with a Notification dated 01.09.2015, absorbing the appellant to Mizoram Health Service.

¶45

The appellant was posted in the Directorate of Health Services, Mizoram State Health Care Society.

¶46

11. The 4(four) private respondents/writ petitioners, referred to above, challenged such absorption of the appellant on the ground that the Rules were relaxed arbitrarily only to favour the appellant, without there being any provision in the Rules of 2009 for absorption of an employee working under deputation and that such absorption had adversely affected their promotional avenues, who, at the relevant time, were working as Grade-II Officers under GDMO Sub-Cadre.

¶47

12. The sum and substance of the contention of the private respondents/writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the absorption of the appellant, without relaxation of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2009, is illegal and arbitrary. Rule 30 of the Rules of 2009 was invoked even without consulting the Mizoram Public Service Commission before absorption of the appellant. It was only the Health & Family Welfare Department, which had consulted the Commission.

¶48

13. The further contention of the private respondents/ writ petitioners was that Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 2009 were relaxed without any justifiable reason, thus, offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This, the private respondents/writ petitioners contended, had impinged on their rights to be considered for promotion to Grade-I under GDMO SubCadre.

¶49

Page No.# 6/14

¶50

14. In order to appreciate the contention of the private respondents/writ petitioners, it would be apposite to cull out Rules 8, 10 and 30 of the Rules of 2009 for the sake of ready reference as also for completeness.

¶51

15. Rules 8, 10 and 30 of the Rules of 2009 are being reproduced herein below:

¶52

“ 8. Recruitment to the Service:

¶53

Recruitment to the service after the commencement of these rules shall be by the following methods:

¶54

a) 100% of the substantive post in the grade III of GDMO, Dental Surgeon and AYUSH Sub-Cadres shall be filled by direct recruitment through the commission as specified in Schedule III.

¶55

b) Lateral entry for Specialist, Public Health and Dental Specialist Sub Cadres, will be made in Grade II by direct recruitment through the commission as specified in Schedule III.

¶56

c) Lateral entry for Super Specialist Sub-Cadre will be made in Grade I by direct recruitment through the commission as specified in Schedule III.”

¶57

“ 10. Appointment to the Service:

¶58

1) All appointments to the service, after commencement of these Rules, shall be made and notified in the Gazette by the Government and no such appointment shall be made except in the manner specified in rule 8.

¶59

2) All appointments to the service shall be made in the appropriate grades of the service and not again specific posts.

¶60

3) All appointments to the service in the higher grades of time-scale of Pay shall be made only by promotion in accordance with the appropriate provisions under these rules except those holder of degrees or diplomas of specialities/super specialities in a particular discipline as specified in rule 9(6) of these rules.

¶61

4) Other things being equal, preference will be given to those persons having Rural Area experience of at least one year.”

¶62

Page No.# 7/14

¶63

“ 30. Power of the Governor to Dispense with, amend, repeal or Relax any Rule:

¶64

Where the Governor is satisfied that the operation of any of these Rules cause undue hardship in any particular case or that in the exigencies of Public Service as well as for effective implementation of these Rules it is so necessary, he may dispense with or relax or amend and repeal such particular rule or rules or any of the schedules to these Rules, to such extent or subject to such conditions as he may consider necessary, in consultation with the Commission through the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms from time to time;

¶65

Provided that the case of any person shall not be dealt with in any manner except under article 311 of the Constitution, as may be less favourable to him than that provided by any of these Rules.

¶66

Provided further that any such dispensation or relaxation in any individual shall not be a precedent or a binding policy for the Government in any other case.”

¶67

16. A bare reading of the afore-noted Rules would demonstrate the manner in which recruitment to the Service is to be made. All appointments to the Service in the higher grades or time scale of pay, according to the Rules, are to be made only by promotion in accordance with the appropriate provisions under the Rules.

¶68

17. With respect to the power of the Governor to relax the Rules, Rule 30 of the Rules of 2009 envisages that if the Governor is satisfied that the operation of any of the Rules caused any undue hardship in any particular case; or for the exigencies of public service or for effective implementation of the Rules it is so necessary, he may dispense with or relax or amend and repeal such particular rule or rules or any of the Schedules to the rules, to such extent or subject to such conditions as he may consider necessary, in consultation with the Commission through the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms from time to time.

¶69

Page No.# 8/14

¶70

18. The State respondents submitted before the learned Single Judge that the deputation of the appellant and his ultimate absorption in the service was for successful implementation of Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) and Mizoram State Health Care Scheme as per the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules of 2009.

¶71

19. It was reiterated by the State that on the representation of the appellant for his absorption, the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Mizoram advised the Health & Family Welfare Department to obtain the views of the Mizoram Government Doctors’ Association; take no objection from the ESI Corporation, New Delhi and secure approval from the Hon’ble Minister, Health & Family Welfare Department, Mizoram.

¶72

An advisory was also made to identify a suitable vacant post of the appropriate grade of the relevant Sub-Cadre under the Mizoram Health Service.

¶73

20. The Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Mizoram, duly obtained the views of the Mizoram Government Doctors’ Association; NOC from the ESI Corporation, New Delhi, as also the approval of the Departmental Minister and the vacant post also was identified for absorption of the appellant. The Mizoram Public Service Commission was also consulted for relaxation of the Service Rules, which gave its consent and it was only thereafter that the Governor, in public interest, relaxed Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 2009 for absorption of the appellant to Grade-I GDMO Sub-Cadre.

¶74

The family hardships of the appellant, as also his exemplary service record and his efforts at implementation of important Government Policies were taken into account for carrying out the process of absorption of the appellant.

¶75

21. The State respondents also contended that with the absorption of the

¶76

Page No.# 9/14

¶77

appellant, the private respondents/ writ petitioners would not in any way be prejudiced as they would be considered for non-functional promotion within the respective Sub-Cadre by way of financial up-gradation even without linkage to the vacancies.

¶78

22. During the pendency of the writ petition, it appears that the private respondents/writ petitioners were granted non-functional promotion/upgradation from Grade-II to Grade-I of Mizoram Health Service under GDMO Sub-Cadre on 05.10.2016.

¶79

23. The stand of the Mizoram Public Service Commission is that the Commission, before giving necessary concurrence for relaxation of Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 2009 for absorption of the appellant, thoroughly examined the circumstances which necessitated relaxation of the relevant Rules.

¶80

24. The learned Single Judge, vide the judgment impugned, however, observed that, from the affidavits of the State and the Commission, there was no evidence of any undue hardship to the appellant or was there any service exigency justifying the relaxation of the Rules. It was also observed that even the deputation of the appellant from ESI Corporation to the Government of Mizoram was without any Rules in that regard.

¶81

25. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Anr. -Vs- State of Assam & Ors . , (2013) 2 SCC 516 and State of Gujarat & Ors. -Vs- Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Anr. , (2012) 9 SCC 545 , the learned Single Judge doubted whether the authorities pandered to the test of causation of undue hardship in case of the appellant. He did not find any recorded satisfaction of the Governor before relaxing the Service

¶82

Page No.# 10/14

¶83

Rules.

¶84

26. It may be noted here that in the afore-noted decisions of the Supreme Court, it has been held that the language of the Rule with respect to the relaxation has may caveats. It only serves as the guidelines. It cannot be exercised in any arbitrary manner so as to dispense with the procedure of selection in its entirety in respect of a person. Such relaxation has to be made only for justifiable reasons and not for favouring any individual. It could be relaxed for any emergent situation or in a situation where injustice might have been caused, or is likely to be caused to any person or class of persons, or where the working of the said Rules might have become impossible.

¶85

27. Differentiating the facts of the case in Sandeep Kumar Sharma -VsState of Punjab & Ors. , (1997) 10 SCC 298 , where in case of an employee, physical fitness standard was relaxed against a policy to give special consideration to the relatives of those who had suffered acts of terrorism, the learned Single Judge found that there was no such policy for relaxation of the Rules.

¶86

28. It may be noted here that in Sandeep Kumar Sharma (supra), the Apex Court had held that the power of relaxation could either be for the purpose of mitigating hardship or to meet special and deserving situations, which provision must be construed liberally, but not arbitrarily. No narrow construction ought to be given to such enabling provision which may ultimately lead to denial of benefit to the really deserving persons. The Supreme Court went on to explain in Sandeep Kumar Sharma (supra) that the rule of relaxation must get a pragmatic construction so as to achieve implementation of a good policy of the Government.

¶87

Page No.# 11/14

¶88

29. The other reasoning given by the learned Single Judge against the absorption of the appellant was that in the absence of any source of power, such power of deputation and absorption could not have been exercised by relaxation of the Rules.

¶89

30. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the private respondents/writ petitioners, by referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in G. Muniyappa Naidu -Vs- State of Karnataka & Ors. , (1976) 4 SCC 543 ; Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. -Vs- State of J&K & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 561 and Kunal Nanda -Vs- Union of India & Ors. , (2000) 5 SCC 362 , has submitted that under the cadre and Recruitment Regulations, without there being any provision, there could be no absorption and that in the facts of this case, the relaxation of the Rules is bad in the eyes of law.

¶90

31. Mr. Choudhury further submitted that in Kunal Nanda (supra), it has categorically been held that a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in his claim for permanent absorption in the Department where he worked on deputation, unless his claim is based upon a statutory Rule, Regulation or Order having the force of law. A deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent Department, at the instance of either borrowing Department or the parent Department. There is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the borrowing Department.

¶91

32. On the issue of relaxation of Rules in favour of an employee, it was argued by Mr. Choudhury that the State must behave like a model employer and should act fairly, giving due regard and respect to the Rules framed by it. Under no circumstances, such Rules be permitted to be atrophied.

¶92

Page No.# 12/14

¶93

33. From a conspectus of facts and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it appears that the deputation of the appellant in the Mizoram Health Service was without any specific Rule of deputation but the same was never questioned by anyone. The deputation was with the concurrence of the Mizoram State in its Health Department and the parent organization where the appellant worked.

¶94

34. It further appears that the appellant remained on deputation for 3(three) years, whereafter he was granted another extension of a year, but before the expiry of the extended period of deputation, the request made by the appellant for his absorption was acceded to but only after taking all clearances from various Departments and obtaining concurrence of the Mizoram Public Service Commission. It was only thereafter that a decision was taken by the Governor for relaxation of Rule 10(1) and Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 2009, by invoking the powers under Rule 30.

¶95

35. The wife of the appellant had died during the deputation period of the appellant and his two children, residing in Mizoram, had to be taken care of by him. During the period of deputation, the appellant had made tireless efforts to effectively implement the Government Schemes for Health Care and his services were needed for taking such Schemes to fruition.

¶96

36. The contention of the private respondents/writ petitioners that the decision of relaxing the Rules was not taken by the Governor, is untenable. The Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Government in its concerned Ministry.

¶97

37. The records are replete with necessary clearances and the reasons for relaxation of the Rules.

¶98

Page No.# 13/14

¶99

38. We do not find that the Rules were relaxed only for unduly favouring the appellant. The absorption of the appellant in the Mizoram Health Service has not, in any manner, infringed the promotional avenues of the private respondents/writ petitioners who have been granted non-functional promotion within the respective Sub-Cadres.

¶100

39. The records clearly reveal that the efficient handling of the Health Care Projects/Schemes of the Government made it imperative for the State to allow the appellant to be absorbed in Mizoram Health Service.

¶101

40. We have also noted the fact that after the absorption of the appellant, his seniority has been counted with effect from the date when he was appointed on regular basis to the Grade of Chief Medical Officer in his parent Department, i.e. from 19.04.2013, and that he has been placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Grade-I of the GDMO Sub-Cadre.

¶102

41. The major concern of the private respondents/writ petitioners of the wrong invocation of Rule 30 of the Rules of 2009 remains unsubstantiated.

¶103

42. A conscious decision was taken by the Governor on the aid and advice of the Government for relaxing the Rules for permanent absorption of the appellant, which power can be located in Rule 30 of the Rules of 2009, about which reference has been made earlier.

¶104

43. We have not found any arbitrariness in the decision of the Governor in relaxing the Rules for absorption of the appellant in Mizoram Health Service.

¶105

44. The argument that there is no provision for absorption in the Rules of 2009 is of no consequence as relaxation of any part of the Rules is permissible under the circumstances enumerated under Rule 30, which includes relaxation

¶106

Page No.# 14/14

¶107

of the Rules for absorption as well.

¶108

45. True it is that the State, as a model employer, must conduct itself with high probity and candour, ensuring the Rule of law but we have not found any noticeable disregard of the Rules so as to justify any interference.

¶109

46. For the afore-noted reasons, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the opinion of the learned Single Judge and, therefore, we set aside the judgment impugned in the present appeal.

¶110

47. The absorption of the appellant in the Mizoram Health Service stands ratified.

¶111

48. The writ appeal is allowed.

¶112

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶113

Comparing Assistant

Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara v. Dr. Lairuatpuli Hiawnmual and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara v. Dr. Lairuatpuli Hiawnmual and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaynab Nessa Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Abdul Kuddus Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Mithlesh Kumar Devedi Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara Vs Dr. Lairuatpuli Hiawnmual and 9 Ors.

The State of Assam Vs Ashish Nath and Anr.

Neelam Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.