Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision :12.03.2026 vs State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 12 March, 2026
Author: H.S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S. Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:174
Serial No. 25
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 410 of 2024
Date of Decision :12.03.2026
Smti Lurena Lyngdoh,
W/o Herman Roy Laloo
R/o Mawlai Phudmuri, Shillong
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya ...Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. State of Meghalaya represented by
The Secretary Health & Family Welfare Department,
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong
2. The Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya,
Health & Family Welfare Department,
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong
3. The Director of Health Services (MI)
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong
4. The District Medical & Health Officer,
East Khasi Hills,
Government of Meghalaya, Shillong ...Respondent(s)
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Paul, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. B. Snaitang, Adv.
Ms. K. Decruse, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Ms. Z.E Nongkynrih, GA
Page 1 of 5
2026:MLHC:174
____________________________________________________________
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
in the year 1993 as Laboratory Technician in the Department of Health &
Family Welfare after being recommended by the Departmental Selection
Committee. The services of the petitioner was then confirmed in the year
2019 by the Director of Health Services (MI), but strangely vide order dated
18.03.2023, the respondent No. 3 issued a list of adhoc appointees who were
to be regularized and the name of the petitioner was on the said list. The
petitioner being aggrieved with the said order, is before this Court by way
of the instant writ petition.
2. Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.
Snaitang, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
had initially been appointed since 06.08.1993, and was confirmed vide order
dated 24.01.2019. The petitioner he submits, serving against a permanent
sanctioned post was given all the benefits accruing from her service such as
ACPS etc. apart from the fact that from the date of initial appointment, she
was placed in a regular scale of pay with usual allowances as permissible
Page 2 of 5
2026:MLHC:174
under the Rules. However, he submits the State respondents by the
impugned order dated 18.03.2023, have shown her to be serving in an adhoc
capacity and regularized by the said order. The learned Senior counsel
submits that the placing of the petitioner in an adhoc status after
confirmation in service, is clearly erroneous and illegal, inasmuch as, it will
cause a severe impact on her services and accrued benefits, such as
consideration of her length of service for the purposes of pension etc., He
therefore, submits that the impugned order as far as it concerns the petitioner
being irrational, is liable to be not be given effect to.
3. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z.E
Nongkynrih, learned GA for the State respondents submits that the post
against which the petitioner was appointed was a temporary non-gazetted
post which received sanction for permanent retention on 15.05.2015, and
that though the petitioner was confirmed against the post, her services was
regularized vide the order dated 18.03.2023 on completion of the Special
Interview conducted by the Department Selection Committee, and as such
her services are to be counted from the date of regularization. He submits
that this being the position, the petitioner was not entitled to any further
relief.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court in
consideration of the facts and on examination of the materials, notes that
Page 3 of 5
2026:MLHC:174
from the time of initial temporary appointment which was by way of a
Departmental Selection Committee, the petitioner has been afforded all the
trappings of regular employment i.e. applicable pay scale, allowances and in
the course of service also given benefits under the ACPS. The confirmation
granted on 24.01.2019, was also by the competent authority against a
permanent sanctioned post, and as such therefore, there was no element of
the employment being adhoc or temporary in nature. The impugned order
dated 18.03.2023, regularizing the petitioner therefore, would amount to just
a formality considering the fact that in the normal course of employment, an
employee is confirmed after regularization.
5. At this juncture, reference can be made to a letter dated
03.12.2014 (Annexure-2 to the additional affidavit of the petitioner) issued
by the Under Secretary, Finance (Pay Revision) Department addressed to the
Director of Health Services (MI), wherein it has been clarified that: –
“1. An employee who has been confirmed in the post is a
substantive holder of the post. In other words, he is a
permanent employee of the Government irrespective of
whether his service has been regularized or not. Therefore,
the length of service should be counted from the date of initial
appointment”.
As such, it is clear for a confirmed employee, the length of
service should be counted from the date of initial appointment. In the case
of the petitioner therefore, the length of service is to be counted from the
Page 4 of 5
2026:MLHC:174
date of initial appointment i.e. 06.08.1993, which would therefore render the
order dated 18.03.2023, redundant as far as her services are concerned.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of with
the direction that the impugned order dated 18.03.2023, as far as the
petitioner is concerned is set aside and shall not be given effect to, and
further her services shall be reckoned from the date of initial appointment
for the purposes of pension and other admissible terminal benefits.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
12.03.2026
“V. Lyndem- PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.03.12 18:09:33 IST
