Meghalaya High Court
Iamonlang Marbaniang vs The State Of Meghalaya Represented By … on 29 January, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:13-DB
Serial Nos. 04-09 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Daily List AT SHILLONG
WA No. 6 of 2024 with
WA No. 7 of 2024
WA No. 8 of 2024
WA No. 9 of 2024
WA No. 10 of 2024
WA No. 22 of 2024
Date of order: 29.01.2025
WA No.6/2024
Iamonlang Marbaniang
....Appellant
Vs
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
2. The Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel
ADMV Reforms (B) Department, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
3. The Director of Health Services (MI) Health Complex,
Laitumkhrah, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. The District Medical & Health Officer, West Khasi Hills
District, Nongstoin.
5. Shri. Bonyfast Wahlang, temporary Stretcher Bearer,
DM&HO, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District.
....Respondents
WA No. 7 of 2024
Artones Lyngdoh
...Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
Page 1 of 9
2025:MLHC:13-DB
2. The Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel
ADMV Reforms (B) Department, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
3. The Director of Health Services (MI) Health Complex,
Laitumkhrah, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. The District Medical & Health Officer, West Khasi Hills
District, Nongstoin.
5. Shri. Botti Wahlang, Cook, DM&HO, Nongstoin, West Khasi
Hills District.
....Respondents
WA No. 8 of 2024
Ephilinda Lyngdoh Mawnai
...Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
2. The Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel
ADMV Reforms (B) Department, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
3. The Director of Health Services (MI) Health Complex,
Laitumkhrah, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. The District Medical & Health Officer, West Khasi Hills
District, Nongstoin.
5. Smti. Telbi Ryntathiang, DM&HO, Nongstoin, West Khasi
Hills District.
....Respondents
Page 2 of 9
2025:MLHC:13-DB
WA No. 9 of 2024
Smti. Listina Basaiawmoit
...Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
2. The Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel
ADMV Reforms (B) Department, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
3. The Director of Health Services (MI) Health Complex,
Laitumkhrah, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. The District Medical & Health Officer, West Khasi Hills
District, Nongstoin.
....Respondents
WA No. 10 of 2024
Smti. Simple Marbaniang
...Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
2. The Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel
ADMV Reforms (B) Department, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
3. The Director of Health Services (MI) Health Complex,
Laitumkhrah, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. The District Medical & Health Officer, West Khasi Hills
District, Nongstoin.
5. Shri. Bonyfast Wahlang, Stretcher Bearer, Tirot Singh
Memorial Hospital, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District.
....Respondents
Page 3 of 9
2025:MLHC:13-DB
WA No. 22 of 2024
Shri. Rockcliff John Nongrum
...Appellant
Vs.
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by the Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
2. The Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Personnel
ADMV Reforms (B) Department, East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
3. The Director of Health Services (MI) Health Complex,
Laitumkhrah, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. The District Medical & Health Officer, West Khasi Hills
District, Nongstoin.
5. Smti. Telbi Ryntathiang, Ward attendant, Tirot Singh Hospital
Mairang, West Khasi Hills District.
....Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellants : Mr. R. Gurung, Adv with
Ms. A. Chetri, Adv
For the Respondents : Mrs. T. Yangi B., AAG with
Mrs. I. Lyngwa, GA
i) Whether approved for Yes
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication No
in press:
Page 4 of 9
2025:MLHC:13-DB
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
There are six appellants before us. All of them were appointed on
temporary and contractual basis for a period of three months as stretcher
bearers by the District and Medical Health Officer, West Khasi Hills,
Nongstoin, Meghalaya.
The affidavit filed by the State shows that all these
appointments were made between 2013 and 2014. It appears that from
time to time this three months’ period of appointment was renewed in
case of each of the appellants but not later than October, 2018. Most of
them were renewed only till 2017.
The cause of action on which these writs were founded was
this. The writ petitioners were entitled to immediate reinstatement and
further renewal of their service from time to time.
If one considers this ground of the appellants in isolation, they
have no case whatsoever.
Mrs. T. Yangi B., learned AAG appearing for the State has
made the following submissions on which basis, we have made our
above observations.
These temporary appointments were maintained for a certain
period of time between 2018 and 2019 or 2020. A regular recruitment
process was carried out resulting in regular permanent appointments to
these posts. There is no scope of any temporary appointment to
continue. She began by citing the celebrated case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka & ors v. Uma Devi (3) & ors reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1,
where a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court deprecated
regularisation of temporary or ad hoc employees, except on very
Page 5 of 9
2025:MLHC:13-DB
extraordinary and specific circumstances and ruled that any public post
was to be filled up fairly and transparently by a recruitment or selection
process. In Harminder Kaur & ors v. Union of India & ors reported in
(2009) 13 SCC 90, the same Court held that the dicta in Uma Devi(3)
was not being followed by some courts which were continuing to direct
regularisation of ad hoc or temporary appointments on some pretext or
the other. It quoted from Official Liquidator v. Dayanand reported in
(2008) 10 SCC 1 to deprecate the practice. The following passage was
quoted:
“90. We are distressed to note that despite several
pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in
the number of cases involving violation of the basics of
judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of
the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and
law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing
minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so.
Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect
to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave
impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages
chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability
and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial
jurisprudence developed in this country in the last six decades
and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the
superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system
inasmuch as the courts at the grass roots will not be able to
decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law
and which one should be followed.
91. We may add that in our constitutional set-up every citizen
is under a duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its
ideals and institutions. Those who have been entrusted with
the task of administering the system and operating various
constituents of the State and who take oath to act in
accordance with the Constitution and uphold the same, have to
set an example by exhibiting total commitment to the
constitutional ideals. This principle is required to be observedPage 6 of 9
2025:MLHC:13-DBwith greater rigour by the members of judicial fraternity who
have been bestowed with the power to adjudicate upon
important constitutional and legal issues and protect and
preserve rights of the individuals and society as a whole.
Discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient
functioning of the judicial system. If the courts command
others to act in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution and rule of law, it is not possible to countenance
violation of the constitutional principle by those who are
required to lay down the law.
92. In the light of what has been stated above, we deem it
proper to clarify that the comments and observations made by
the two-Judge Bench in U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chandra Pandey
should be read as obiter and the same should neither be treated
as binding by the High Courts, tribunals and other judicial
foras nor they should be relied upon or made basis for
bypassing the principles laid down by the Constitution
Bench.”
This dictum in Uma Devi(3) was again reaffirmed in State of
Bihar & ors v. Devendra Sharma reported in (2020) 15 SCC 466
(paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 29, 34 and 44) and in Ganesh Digamber
Jambhrunkar & ors v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 801.
We cannot and do not dispute or differ from the proposition
that these posts were purely contractual and temporary for three months.
The appointees had no right of renewal of their service, far less any
right of regularisation.
However, there is one distinctive feature in this case.
The writ petitioners had averred in paragraph 9 of the writ
petition that subsequent to expiry of the contractual term, the service of
all contractual employees except nine was renewed (till the regular
appointments were made). Now, during continuance of their contractual
Page 7 of 9
2025:MLHC:13-DB
terms, these nine appointees had filed writ petitions in this Court to
claim their salaries and other dues. The services of only these nine
individuals were not renewed.
Unfortunately, this averment has not been denied in paragraph
9 of the affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition filed by the State.
Paragraph 9 of the writ petition and paragraph 9 of the
affidavit-in-opposition are quoted below:
“9. That it is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent
No. 4 had made 31 appointments similar to that of your
humble Petitioner and 9 individuals including the Petitioner
had approached this Hon’ble Court for a direction for
disbursement of their salaries whereby the individuals have
brought upon them the wrath of the Respondent authorities
which is evidence from the impugned letter dated 19/02/2019
whereby direction have been passed as not to renew the
services of only those individuals who had approached the
Hon’ble Court excluding the individuals who did not approach
the Hon’ble Court.”
“9. That in reply to the averments in paragraph 9 of the writ
petition, the Answering Respondent humbly submits that the
same are false and unsustainable and hence denied. In fact, the
Director of Health Services (MI), Meghalaya, Shillong had
issued the Letter No. HSM/ESTT/NGZT/CC/DIST/31/32408
dated 19-02-2019 whereby requesting the District Medical &
Health Officer, West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin to immediately
release the pay and other allowances to the Petitioner in
compliance with the Order of this Hon’ble Court dated 15-11-
2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 412 of 2018, and accordingly, the
concerned Treasury Officer, West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin had
duly released the salaries of the Petitioner for the period of her
service as per the appointment order(s). Therefore, the
impugned order dated 19-02-2019 passed by Respondent No.
3 is fair, reasonable and legally sound.”
Page 8 of 9
2025:MLHC:13-DB
Therefore, this case narrows down to exclude any claim for
regularisation. It centers around the remedy which the appellants are
entitled to for being clearly discriminated against at the time of renewal
of their temporary service when the regular recruitment or selection
process had not even started. In our view, the State has acted unfairly
and a little maliciously against the appellants by not renewing their
temporary service because they approached this Court. To this extent
they are entitled some remedy from this Court. At best, each of them
was entitled to three months renewal. Further renewal was at the entire
discretion of the respondents. During this period when their service was
not renewed, the appellant did not have to work.
In those circumstances, we direct the State to pay two months’
salary or emoluments which was payable to each of the appellants at the
time of expiry of service in 2017 or 2018. This would be a just and
equitable relief to them. The payment directed to be made by us should
be paid within eight weeks from the date of communication of this
order.
The impugned judgment and order is modified to above effect.
Each of the six appeals is thus disposed of.
(W. Diengdoh) (Justice I.P. Mukerji)
Judge Chief Justice
Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LAMPHRANG KHARCHANDY
Date: 2025.01.30 17:10:29 IST
