Page 1 of 16

Serial No. 01

Regular List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 70 of 2024 Date of Hearing: 24.08.2026

Date of Decision: 07.09.2026

1.Shri. Elias Marbaniang

S/o (L) K. Kharkongor,

R/o Kynton Massar,

Mawlai, Shillong – 793022

2.Shri. Jeliston Kharmynthon

S/o (L) K. Jyrwa

R/o Madanryting, Shillong – 793021

3.Shri. Probir Ghosh

S/o (L) B.P. Ghosh

R/o NEHU Campus, Shillong – 793022

4.Shri. Raj Mizar

S/o (L) B. Mizar

R/o Laitumkhrah, Shillong – 793003

5.Shri. Ranstor Kharpran

S/o (L) B. Jyrwa

R/o Mawtawar, Shillong – 793022

6.Shri. Newstar Lyngdoh

S/o (L) S. Nongpiur

R/o Phudmawri, Mawlai,

Shillong – 793008

Page 2 of 16

7.Shri. Khrawbok Syiemlieh

S/o (L) R. Chyne

R/o Nongkwar, Mawlai,

Shillong – 793008

8.Shri. Thwon Lyngdoh

S/o (L) L. Marbaniang

R/o Mawpat, Shillong – 12

9.Shri. Donborlang Nongpiur

S/o (L) F. Pakem

R/o Mawtawar, Shillong – 793022 :::Petitioners

Versus

1.Union of India represented by the

Secretary, Government of India, Ministry

of Education, Shashtri Bhavan, C. Wing,

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001

2. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances

and Pensions, Department of Personnel and

Training represented by The Secretary to the

Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,

Public Grievances and Pensions, North Block,

New Delhi, PIN – 110001

3.University Grant Commission, represented by

the Chairman, UGC, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,

New Delhi – 110002

4.North Eastern Hill University represented by

The Vice Chancellor, NEHU Campus,

Umshing, Shillong – 793022

5.The Registrar, North Eastern Hill University,

NEHU Campus, Umshing, Shillong – 793022 :::Respondents

Page 3 of 16

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. D.K. Dutta, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Langstieh, Adv. (For R 3)

Mr. S. Sen, Adv. (For R 4&5).

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No

Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press: Yes/No

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. The petitioners 9 in number are before this Court praying for

directions for regularization of their services in accordance with the scheme

called “The Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and

Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993” and for

quashing and setting aside an impugned letter dated 12.09.2023, whereby it

has been communicated that the respondent University on its own, is not in

a position to regularize the services of the petitioners.

2. The brief background facts are that the petitioners were originally

appointed as Casual Labourers at NEHU, Shillong Campus, and they

Page 4 of 16

performed essential skilled and semi-skilled duties such as carpenters,

electricians, linemen etc. As per the aforementioned 1993 scheme, which

came into effect from 01.09.1993, Casual Labourers were eligible to be

granted ‘Temporary Status’ and also eligible for regularization after

completing 3(three) years of continuous service from the date of

conferment. By an order dated 24.02.2020, the respondent University

conferred temporary status on the petitioners w.e.f. 01.09.1993, which

would therefore as on date mean that the petitioners have rendered over

30(thirty) years of service, as Casual Labourers with Temporary Status.

Subsequently, pursuant to the recommendations of the Sixth Pay

Commission, relevant ‘Group-D’ posts in the University were upgraded

and redesignated as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), which the petitioners

claim and contend that their consideration for regularization be processed

under this updated designation.

3. The petitioners had also preferred multiple representations on

19.12.2022, 25.10.2022 and 21.11.2022, and on receiving no positive

response had approached this Court by way of WP(C) No. 103 of 2023,

wherein this Court by order dated 03.05.2023, directed the respondents to

dispose of their representations within a period of 4(four) months from the

date a copy of the said order was presented to them. Thereafter, the

respondent No. 5, by letter dated 12.09.2023, which is impugned herein,

Page 5 of 16

expressed the University’s inability to regularize the petitioner services on

its own and that the cases of the petitioners had been forwarded to the

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DoPT) and to the

University Grants Commission (UGC) for further directives.

4. The case put up by the petitioners is that the respondent University

has arbitrarily delayed their regularization by referring the matter to other

Government Departments instead of exercising its own autonomous

authority, which has created injustice and are violation of their fundamental

rights and legitimate expectation.

5. The issues that arise for determination are therefore, whether Casual

Labourers with Temporary Status under an autonomous University created

by statute are covered by the Scheme of 1993, and whether the extension of

the scheme by the UGC in 1998, creates a vested legal right to

regularization for the Casual Workers under the University that cannot be

taken away.

6. Mr. D.K. Dutta, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners has

submitted that NEHU being an autonomous body possesses sole authority,

discretion and legal mandate to adopt and implement the Central

Government Scheme. It is further submitted that “The Casual Labourers

(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the

Government of India, 1993” had been adopted by the University vide a

Page 6 of 16

Resolution of the Executive Council made on 20.01.2020, and having

adopted the Scheme, the University thus was the Executing Authority. It is

then contended that the University had previously regularized Casual

Labourers with Temporary Status on its own authority without seeking

external permission and that the UGC vide communication dated

22.04.1996, had authorised the University to pool vacant posts and to

create multi-functional positions to absorb daily wages, and further to

absorb employees with Temporary Status, when vacancies arise.

7. The learned counsel has argued that once an administrative body

adopts a beneficial scheme it must implement the same ‘in toto’ rather than

selectively or in a piece meal manner. It is also contended that under the

1993 Scheme, Casual Labourers with Temporary Status are eligible for

regularization and as such, the petitioners having been conferred this status

w.e.f. 01.09.1993, are thus entitled for regularization. Further, submissions

made are that following the recommendations of the Sixth Pay

Commission, wherein all Group-D posts in the University were upgraded

and re-designated as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), the case of the petitioners

for regularization must be processed under this new cadre. It has also been

asserted that the respondent University deliberately omitted this fact in the

impugned letter dated 12.09.2023, to avoid considering the petitioners for

absorption into the revised MTS scale, and that as they are under the 1993

Page 7 of 16

Scheme, they are not subject to fresh recruitment, but infact, entitled to

regularisation as MTS with effect from 3(three) years from the effective

date, they were put under the scheme.

8. In concluding his arguments, the learned counsel has submitted that

the University’s actions constitute a colorable exercise of powers, as there

has been a deliberate attempt to shelve the case of the petitioners and that

vital information was not brought before this Court in the earlier round of

litigation. Further, it has been emphasized that the action of the respondent

University has caused the writ petitioners irreparable loss and injury, as

many of them are at an advanced age, and on the verge of retirement.

9. On behalf of the respondent University, Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel

has submitted that after the restructuring of Central Government Services

following the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, all Group-D

posts ceased to exist upon being upgraded to Group-C posts, which have

been designated as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) in the pay band PB-1+ Rs.

1800/- Grade Pay. As such, he submits, because Group-D posts no longer

exist, it has become structurally impossible for the University to consider

the cases of the petitioners for regularization. On the other aspect raised by

the petitioners as to the autonomy of the University, it has been submitted

that the University does not possess autonomous power to unilaterally

regularize the services of the petitioners in the absence of sanctioned

Page 8 of 16

Group-D posts. It has also been submitted that unless specific directions are

received from DoPT, Government of India, and the same approved and

extended to the University by the UGC, the case of the petitioners cannot

be considered. As the University he submits, has to follow the Central

directives, the bar that has been created by the DoPT O.M. No. AB-

14017/6/2009-Estt. (RR) forwarded by the UGC vide letter dated

08.04.2011, that there be no further recruitment in Group-D posts, the

University is unable to consider the case of the petitioners.

10. The allegation of there being any arbitrary or malafide action has

been strongly rebutted by the learned counsel, who submits that

recruitment rules were amended by the Executive Council of the NEHU to

align with Government of India directives, and that infact, the University

had actively pursued the petitioners case by the formal letters to the DoPT

with copies to the UGC on 06.02.2023 and 14.08.2023. The rejection of the

petitioners’ representation he submits, was due to the fact that no response

was received from the DoPT or the UGC, and as such, in the absence of

such approval, the prayer of the petitioners was regretted vide letter dated

12.09.2023. It is then submitted that the earlier appointment orders were

issued because at that relevant point of time, the petitioners fulfilled the

criteria under the 1993 Scheme, when Group-D posts were still in

existence.

Page 9 of 16

11. The learned counsel then submits that apart from the fact, that the

petitioners cannot be regularized due to the abolition of Group-D posts

which has been upgraded to Group-C posts, the higher educational

qualification required, to be eligible for this post i.e. Matriculation or

equivalent or ITI passed, also is not possessed by the petitioners which

therefore puts them out of the zone of consideration, despite the long years

of service. In these circumstances it is submitted, the hands of the

respondent University are tied by the Sixth Pay Commission

Recommendation and the Government of India and UGC recruitment

mandates, inspite of efforts made in good faith by the respondents.

12. Ms. S. Langstieh, learned counsel on behalf of the UGC has relied

upon the DoPT O.M. No. 49014/01/2023-Estt. (C) dated 31.08.2023, to

emphasize that the 1993 Scheme, was strictly a one-time measure,

applicable only to those Casual Labourers who had completed a minimum

of one-year of continuous service as on 01.10.1993, which was afforded

only to those Casual Labourers engaged directly in the Government of

India and its subordinate/attached officers. The respondent University she

submits, being an autonomous statutory body established under its own act

(NEHU Act, 1973), its employees are technically not employees of a

Government of India Department, or a subordinate office thereof, and as

such, are completely excluded from the benefits of the 1993 Scheme,

Page 10 of 16

unless specifically extended. She further submits that, the filing up of any

sanctioned posts within a Central University should be strictly in

accordance with the Cadre Recruitment Rules (CRRs) through a proper

selection process and that the accommodation and regularization of the

services of Casual Labourers is not within the powers of the UGC.

13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only prayer of the writ

petitioners is for regularization of their services in accordance with the

scheme known as “The Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and

Regularisation) Scheme of the Government of India, 1993”. This Scheme

as given in Para-3 thereof, is applicable to Causal Labourers in

employment of the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India,

and their attached and subordinate offices, on the date of issue of the

orders, and vide Para-4, Temporary Status would be conferred on all

Casual Labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of the

Scheme, and who have rendered a continuous service of at least 1(one)

year. Paragraph – 3, 4 and 5(vi) being relevant are reproduced hereinbelow:

“3. This scheme is applicable to casual labourers in

employment of the Ministries/Departments of Government of

India and their attached and subordinate offices, on the date

of issue of these orders. But it shall not be applicable to casual

workers in Railways, Department of Telecommunication and

Department of Posts who already have their own schemes.

Page 11 of 16

4. Temporary Status

(i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual

labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this

OM and who have rendered a continuous service of at least

one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a

period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices

observing 5 days week).

(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without

reference to the creation/availability of regular Group ‘D’

posts.

(iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer

would not involve any change in his duties and

responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily rates of pay

on need basis. He may be deployed anywhere within the

recruitment unit/territorial circle on the basis of availability of

work.

(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will

not, however, be brought on to the permanent establishment

unless they are selected through regular selection process for

Group ‘D’ posts.

5. Temporary status would entitle the casual labourers to the

following benefits:-

(vi) After rendering three years’ continuous service after

conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be

treated on par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees for the

purpose of contribution to the General Provident Fund, and

would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival

Page 12 of 16

Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are

applicable to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, provided they

furnish two sureties from permanent Government servants of

their Department.”

14. The Scheme also provided for the procedure for filling up of Group-

D posts at Para-8(i) thereof, which also is reproduced herein below.

“8. Procedure for filling up of Group ‘D’ posts

(i) Two out of every three vacancies in Group ‘D’ cadres

in respective offices where the casual labourers have

been working would be filled up as per extant

recruitment rules and in accordance with the

instructions issued by Department of Personnel and

Training from amongst casual workers with temporary

status. However, regular Group ‘D’ staff rendered

surplus for any reason will have prior claim for

absorption against existing/future vacancies. In case of

illiterate casual labourers or those who fail to fulfill the

minimum qualification prescribed for post,

regularization will be considered only against those

posts in respect of which literacy or lack of minimum

qualification will not be a requisite qualification. They

would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the

period for which they have worked continuously as

casual labourer.”

Page 13 of 16

15. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that the Scheme had been

extended through the UGC to the respondent University and which took

effect from 01.09.2023, and by an order of the University dated

24.02.2020, Temporary Status with retrospective effect from 01.09.2023,

was accorded to the petitioners. However, on the recommendation of the

Sixth CPC, all Group-D posts were upgraded to Group-C posts, and the

other recommendations as contained in O.M. dated 30.04.2010, issued by

the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (DoPT), were

that there would be no further recruitment in Group-D posts and amongst

others, the minimum qualification for appointment to this level was either

10

th

Pass or ITI equivalent. The Office Memorandum dated 30.04.2010,

being relevant is reproduced herein below.

No. AB-14017/6/2009-Estt (RR)

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions

Department of Personnel & Training

New Delhi, dated the 30

th

April 2010

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Model Recruitment Rules for Group ‘C’ posts in Pay Band-1,

with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- (pre-revised Group ‘D’ posts)

****

The 6

th

CPC recommended that all Group ‘D’ posts in the

Government will stand upgraded to Group ‘C’, Pay Band-1

with Grade Pay of Rs.1800, along with the incumbents (after

Page 14 of 16

suitable training, wherever required). The other

recommendations of the Commission, in this regard include:

(i) There will be no further recruitment in Group ‘D’.

(ii) The existing Group ‘D’ posts will be placed in Group

‘C’ Pay Band-1 with Grade Pay of Rs.1800.

(iii) The minimum qualification for appointment to this level

will be either 10

th

pass or ITI equivalent.

(iv) Multi-skilling, with one employee performing jobs

hitherto performed by different Group ‘D’ employees.

(v) Common Designation for these posts.

2. Model Recruitment Rules (Annex-I) have been framed keeping in view the

recommendations of the Pay Commission. All the Ministries/Departments

are requested to amend the Recruitment Rules for the erstwhile Group ‘D’

posts as per the Model RRs and the recommendations of the Pay

Commission.

3. Powers for framing/amendment of RRs for Group ‘C’ posts have already

been delegated to Ministries/Departments. Therefore the RRs may be

framed accordingly, in consultation with Ministry of Law without further

reference to this Department. This Department needs to be consulted only if

any deviations from the model RRs are proposed.

4. Ministries/Departments may adopt the designation of MULTI-TASKING

STAFF for some common categories of posts in the secretariat offices.

Annex-II indicates the categories of erstwhile Group ‘D’ posts which may

be given this designation and illustrative list of duties attached to these

posts. For other categories of posts. Ministries/Departments may adopt

single designation for posts whose duties are similar in nature and where

the officials can easily be switched from on task to another. In all cases it

may be ensured that:

a) The posts are classified as Group ‘C’

b) The posts are placed in Pay Band-1 with Grade Pay of

Rs.1800.

c) The minimum qualification for appointment is prescribed as

10

th

pass. Where technical qualifications are considered

necessary. ITI in the relevant subject may be prescribed as the

minimum qualification.

Page 15 of 16

5. Ministry of Home affairs etc. are requested to bring the contents of this

O.M to the notice of all their Attached/Subordinate Offices. The

autonomous/statutory bodies may adopt the same with the approval of the

competent authority as per their rules/statutes.

6. Hindi version follows.

Sd/-

(J.A. Vaidyanathan)

Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

Tel. 2309 2112

To

1. All Ministries/Departments of Government of India

2. The President’s Secretariat, New Delhi.

3. The Vice-President’s Secretariat, New Delhi

4. The Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi

5. The Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi

6. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi

7. The Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi

8. The Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi

16. After the recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission, and with

the abolition of Group-D posts, it is thus seen that it became structurally

impossible to consider the petitioners for regularization. Further, it is noted

that the University does not possess the autonomous power to unilaterally

regularize the petitioners, unless directions were received from the DoPT,

after due approval and extended by the UGC or the Ministry of Education.

It is also noted that the respondent University, had vide letters dated

06.02.2023 and 14.08.2023, written to the Ministry of Personnel, Public

Grievances and Pensions (DoPT), with a copy to the UGC pertaining to the

Page 16 of 16

case of the petitioners, which however, was regretted by the said

authorities. Another aspect, it is noticed which has prevented the absorption

and regularization of the petitioners into Group-C posts, is the fact that they

do not possess the requisite qualification to occupy the same.

17. In these circumstances therefore, notwithstanding the long years put

in by the petitioners in service, no relief is available or can be granted to

the petitioners under the Scheme of 1993, over which the respondent

University has no authority or control over its implementation.

18. Accordingly, for the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition stands

dismissed and is disposed of.

Judge

Meghalaya

07.09.2026

“D.Thabah-PS”