4 No.Or _ Date•f'tofrOrder Order wjth Signature Office Note as toactlon(jfany)takenon0d 3.2II 3 a-2oo 5 Upon hearing ivfr. N Rai, leaned rer )1()I( counselforthepetitiol}eraswejlasM.S.P.Wai]gdi I earne d Advocate General assisted by Mr. J. B. Pradhan and M. Kapna Thinlay, learned Govi Advocates for the State respoJidents, rye are of the Vlewthapthismattercanbedi.sposedoffatthjsstage cops]dermgthepatureofthecaseandaccordlngly, thls case is hereby dlsposed of with the fo]1ow|pg short order:- The grievance of tile writ petjtioper, SmtHariMayaChhetr]isthatshehadrenderedher servicesasPeo"usterRollM6ssengerunderAH& VS Dapprtment, Govt. of Sikklri for n}ore than 21 yequs but her sery]-ces Pave not been regularised by the authority conpemed desp]`te' tfie absorptjqn apd regularisptionofmanyincunt)eritsivhoarejunjorsto her. Supporting her case, sh? had highlighted abot+t thefactumofreg`ilarizqtjonofndusterRollwprkers `, who al.e juniors tQ her lp paragraphs 8 and 9 pf4er wlitpetitjonwhichisse]fexplanalgiv. . *tasto SerialNo.ofOrder Date Order with S`gnatureItisnotdisputed that the petitioner had Of{iceNo e __action(i{aTrotakenonOrder IItL ofOrder rendered her services continuously and unmterruptedly under the department concerlled for the last more than 21 years. According to us,. under theservicejurisprudence,thepersonorpersoriswho had rendered long and continuous years of services under any Govi. establishment, he or she acquires a right for consideration of regularization of their servicesand,theycannotbethrownoutfromservices whimsically by the appointing authority. Mr S.P. Wangdi, learned Advocate General in his usual frankness submitted that there are other employees also who are similarly situated with the present writ petitioner and certainly, the authority concerned will consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of her services. It is well settled that if the employees rendered their services continuously and uninterruptedly for many years, the authority is bound to consider their cases for regularisation. In the case in hand,. the petitioner had acquired a right Ser'No.Ord :i -iD:::er Order wiith Si.gnature Office Note as to forconsiderationofregularisationofherservicesas )(()I she had rendered long and continuous services of morethan21yearsunderthedepartmentconcemed. In view of the above posit]on, we have noalternativebuttodjrecttheautliorityconcernedto conslder the case of the petjtioner for regularisation of her services preferably within a period of six monthsfromtoday,andcommunicatetheresultofit to the writ petitioner. It is also made clear tbat servicesofthepetitjonershouldnotbedisturbedby the authority. This Cout hope and trust that certainly the atithority concerned shall regularise the services of the writ petitioner. Forthereasonsandobservationsmadeabove, this writ petition is finall.y disposed of but, no order as to costs. -A / N. OV. Surjama . Sjngh) ~ chie£IustickActiing`)-- (A.P. Subba) Judge 1''11111-I-