Allowed

Smti Zimmy Perme v. The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Apr 2025WP(C)/578/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contingency peon challenged the promotion of an ALC employee to MTS on the basis of a separate seniority list, claiming a common seniority list was mandated by OM dated 09.01.2012. The Court referred the matter to the Department of Administrative Reforms to examine the correctness of maintaining two separate seniority lists and directed the petitioner to submit a representation for consideration

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed to the extent that the matter is referred to the Department of Administrative Reforms for examination of the seniority list issue and decision within two months.

Smti Zimmy Perme Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC040016892024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/578/2024

¶5

Smti Zimmy Perme

¶6

Wife of Shri Tokbom Tayeng, serving as Contingency Peon, SDO (Civil) Ruksin, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by Deputy Secretary, Department of Administrative Reform (AR) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh.

¶9

2:The Chairman cum Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Departmental Promotion Committee East Siang District for promotion to Driver/ MTS and regularization of UDC under probation period under the Establishment of Deputy Commissioner Pasighat.

¶10

3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : East Siang District Pasighat Arunachal Pradesh.

¶11

4:Smti Moter Dini Age: 0 Occupation : working as Peon Office of the Deputy Commissioner Pasighat East Siang District

¶12

Page No.# 2/7

¶13

Arunachal Pradesh

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : Nani Anju, Kinyak Loya,Keprunda Mena

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP),

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 10-04-2025

¶19

Heard Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R. Basar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶20

Although, as per the order dated 28.02.2025, notice on the respondent No. 4 was accepted to be duly served, none appears for respondent No. 4 on call.

¶21

The petitioner is serving as a contingent peon in the official residence of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Ruksin, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh and claims to have rendered more than 18 years of continuous service since 01.02.2006. By referring to the documents annexed to the writ petition, it is projected that the respondent No. 4 was appointed by an order dated 11.09.2006 as an Auxiliary Labour Corps (ALC for short), by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of OM dated 09.01.2012, issued under the signature of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, purportedly under the Department of Administrative Reforms, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, which was published in the Gazette on 19.01.2012, amongst others, all the departments/appointing authorities were

¶23

Page No.# 3/7

¶24

required to maintain a common list/register of serving contingent staff with invariably should include both the skilled and unskilled serving staff in their departments/offices in order of their date of joining of such staff. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the categories of contingent staff like contingency peon, the post which the petitioner is holding and other contingent staff like ALC, which the respondent No. 4 is holding, were required to be entered in a common seniority list. The grievance of the petitioner is that the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat had maintained a common seniority list of ALC’s at one point of time, where the name of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 appeared at Sl. Nos. 47 and 48 respectively. The said list also contains the names of persons who were appointed as contingent staff, helper and contingent peon.

¶25

The minutes of the DPC Committee which was held on 11.12.2023 for promotion to driver/MTS and regularization of UDC, held in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, the respondent No. 4 was promoted to MTS (Peon) on seniority-cum-merit basis on the retirement of Mrs. Oni Doming, Drafty on 29.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said minutes dated 11.12.2023 and the consequential office order dated 08.03.2024, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 26.08.2024 and she did not receive any favourable response, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

The learned Government Advocate has referred to the affidavit-inopposition filed by the respondent No. 1 wherein it is stated that a common seniority list was required to be maintained pursuant to the OM dated 09.01.2012, read with corrigendum dated 02.03.2012, read with another notification dated 13.07.2021. However, it is submitted that in the affidavit-n-

¶27

Page No.# 4/7

¶28

opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the said respondents have taken a stand that the OM dated 09.01.2012 only refers to the common seniority list of skilled and unskilled contingency staff and there is no requirement on the said OM for combined seniority list which include ALC and contingency staff and it is stated that the petitioner is a contingent staff and the respondent No. 4 is a ALC. It is also submitted that, as per the said affidavit, there is a continuing practice in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat that the recommendation/regularisation of the contingency staff and ALC staff are done on alternative basis, considering the seniority and educational qualification of the candidates. It is further submitted on this occasion i.e. on 11.12.2023, the ALC was considered for promotion for the post of MTS and on the next time, the cases of the contingency staff would be considered for promotion to the post of MTS. Accordingly, the learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made in this writ petition.

¶29

In light of the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District that the OM dated 09.01.2012 has not provided for maintaining a common seniority list of ALC and contingent staff, however, in the combined seniority list annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-6, the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 47 and the name of the respondent No. 4 appears at Sl. No. 48. However, in paragraph-9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, there is a categorical statement that in the seniority list annexed as Annexure-C for the ALC, the name of the respondent No. 4, namely, Smti Moter Dini, appears in Sl. No. 43 under the separate list of contingencies of East Siang District, which is annexed as Annexure-C. On a perusal of the Annexure-C to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the name of respondent No. 4, namely, Smti Moter Dini does not appear. However, the name

¶30

Page No.# 5/7

¶31

appearing at Sl. No. 43 (page No. 83) is Shri Bir Bdr. Sonar-III, whose date of birth 25.05.1990, date of appointment is 01.07.2007 shown to be Cl-X passed and posted at DC Office, Pasighat. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she has gone through all the 115 entries contained in AnnexureC, but she has not been able to find the name of the respondent No. 4. It is also seen that Annexure-D to the said affidavit, which is the seniority list of contingency (District Administration) of East Siang District, the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 3, date of birth is 05.07.1980, date of appointment being 10.02.2006, shown to be Cl-X Passed, place of posting at Ruksin, remarks as unskilled.

¶32

There is another aspect in this matter. If the Court is to accept the projection made by the petitioner that the common seniority list as envisaged in OM dated 09.01.2012, which also includes ALC’s, contingency peon, helper and contingency staff and if on the assumption that OM dated 09.01.2012 does not direct common seniority list of contingency staff and ALC, for which the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District are maintaining two separate seniority list, any directions in respect of the petitioner will have a ripple or consequential effect on the persons whose name are entered in the separate seniority list for ALC and contingency staff.

¶33

Therefore, as this matter relates to maintenance of a common seniority list of all contingency staff in all the departments, genesis of which is referrable to the OM dated 09.01.2012 issued by the Department of Administrative Reforms, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, this Court deems it appropriate to refer this matter to the Department of Administrative Reforms, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to call for the records from the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat relating to maintenance of separate

¶34

Page No.# 6/7

¶35

seniority list for ALC and contingency staff and thereafter, to examine the correctness or otherwise of the maintenance of two separate seniority list, one of ALC and one for the contingency staff in light of the OM dated 09.01.2012. While doing so, the concerned authority shall also take note of the fact that in the Annexure-C to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No. 2 & 3, the name of the respondent No. 4 does not appear at Sl. No. 43.

¶36

In light of the discussion made hereinabove and view expressed by this Court, the Court is inclined to relegate the petitioner to the Department of Administrative Reforms, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. It is provided that the petitioner shall submit a representation to the Department of Administrative Reforms, Government of Arunachal Pradesh along with a certified copy of this order preferably within a period of 3 (three) weeks. The petitioner shall also provide a photocopy of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as enclosure to the representation along with OM dated 09.01.2012 and notification dated 13.07.2021, so as to enable the said authority to take a considered decision on three points:

¶37

i. As to whether the maintenance of two seniority list, one for the ALC and one for the contingency staff in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat is permissible in light of the OM dated 09.01.2012;

¶38

ii. As to whether the name of the respondent No. 4 appears at Sr. No. 43 of the seniority list for ALC as appended to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also by examining the appropriate records of the said establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District, Pasighat;

¶39

Page No.# 7/7

¶40

iii. As to whether in terms of the OM dated 09.01.2012, the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District and the Selection Board constituted by him could have recommended the name of the petitioner for regularisation based on the parameters laid down in the OM dated 09.01.2012.

¶41

On receipt of the certified copy of the order or the representation of the petitioner, the Department of Administrative Reforms, Government of Arunachal Pradesh shall give an opportunity to the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang District to participate in the process and thereafter, take a decision preferably within a period of 2 (two) months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶42

The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶43

There shall be no order to cost.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Smti Zimmy Perme v. The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Zimmy Perme v. The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Durga Motors Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Tanom Siram Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Dopum Dodum Dolo Women Welfare Development Society Vs Opak Gao and Anr.

Smti Tayo Devi Vs The Union of India and 2 Ors.

Tai Saktar Vs The Union of India and 2 Ors.

Smti Nana Yalla and 3 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 8 Ors.