WP(C) 239/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. K Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Handique, lea rned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as well as Ms Verma, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 7. The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the order dated 11.7.200 7 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (E), North Salmara, Abhayapuri keeping th e order dated 30.11.2006 in abeyance till the clarification is obtained from the competent authority. The petitioner was initially engaged on fixed monthly pay basis in the office of the Election officer, North Salmara, Abhayapuri with effect from 1.9.1991. The monthly remuneration which was fixed initially was Rs. 900/- was subsequently en hanced to Rs. 1700/- per month with effect from 1.3.2005 vide order dated 5.4.20 05 passed by the SDO (E), North Salmara, Abhayapuri. The services of the petitio ner was, thereafter, regularized as office peon-cum-chowkidar by the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the SDO (C), North Salmara in the time scale of pay of Rs. 2450-40-2770-EB-60-3490-3670/- per month with effect from 1.5.2006. The said ord er dated 30.11.2006, however, was kept in abeyance by the impugned order dated 1 1.7.2007 passed by the same authority till the clarification from the competent authority is obtained. In the impugned order dated 11.7.2007 it has, however, be en indicated that the petitioner would continue to be in the fixed pay as allowe d earlier. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the pet itioner’s service was regularized vide order dated 30.11.2006 by taking into acc ount the length of service she has rendered as fixed pay employee and she was re ceiving time scale pay as peon-cum-chowkidar such benefit cannot be unilaterally taken away as has been down in the instant case by the SDO by the impugned orde r dated 11.7.2007. The learned counsel submits that before passing such order th ereby depriving the petitioner from the regular scale of pay at least a notice o ught to have been issued which has not been done in this instant case. Mr. J Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents placin g reliance on the averments made in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 has submitted that since the then SDO (C) passed the order of regularization of the petitioner in service vide order dated 30.11.2006 without initiating any reg ular selection process and without following the Govt. instruction in that regar d the impugned order dated 11.7.2007 had to be passed keeping in abeyance the or der of regularization in service dated 30.11.2006. Moreover, the said post was m eant for regular selection and appointment by undergoing the regular selection p rocess. It has also been submitted that the petitioner, however, would continue to be paid the monthly fixed pay as enhanced from time to time pursuant to her i nitial engagement on fixed pay basis. The learned State counsel further submits that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in another writ proceeding the process for formulating the scheme for regularization of the casual/master roll/work charged employees is on and su ch scheme is expected to be formulated shortly in terms of which the petitioner’ s case would also be considered. Ms Verma, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 also submi ts that since the petitioner’s service was regularized vide order dated 30.11.20 06 without following the due process of law no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order dated 11.7.2007. The learned counsel further submits that on formulation of the scheme of regularization of the casual/master roll/wo rk charged employees the case of the petitioner would also be considered in term s of the scheme to be formulated pursuant to the direction passed by the Divisio n Bench of this Court in WP(C) (Taken up) No. 24/2006. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petiti on may be disposed of directing the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services pursuant to the scheme to be formulated as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ proceeding and till then the respondents may be directed to pay the monthly sal ary as enhanced from time to time to the petitioner till regularization of her s ervices. Having regard to the aforesaid submission made and keeping in view that the peti tioner’s service was regularized by the SDO (C), North Salmara, Abhayapuri vide order dated 30.11.2006 without following the due process of law, while refusing to interfere with the order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the SDO (C) keeping such o rder in abeyance, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in service taking into account the length of her service in terms of the scheme to be form ulated pursuant to the order passed in WP(C)(Taken up) No. 24/2006. Such consideration and necessary orders shall be passed within two months from t he date of formulation of the scheme. The respondents, however, shall continue to pay the monthly fixed pay, as enhanc ed from time to time, to the petitioner till her case is taken up for regulariza tion. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Handique, learned State counsel as well as Ms Verma, learned standing counsel.