Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030003422025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/56/2025 Sh. Joseph Lalnuntluanga and 6 Ors. S/o Vanlalsanga (L) R/o Ramthar veng, Aizawl. 2: Smt. Jasmine Saihmingliani 3: Smt. C. Lalengkimi 4: Sh. M.C. Laltanpuia 5: Smt. S.T. Sangkimi 6: Sh. R. Rodingliana 7: Sh. John Zohmangaih VERSUS The State of Mizoram and 4 Ors. R/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl. 2:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram School Education Dept. 3:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Dept. of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPandAR) 4:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Page No.# 2/4 Finance Dept. 5:The Director of School Education Govt. of Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Dinari T Azyu Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 26.08.2025 Heard Mr. Victor L Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate for the state respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who were initially appointed as lecturers in Govt. Higher Secondary Schools on contract basis during the period 2012 – 13, and upon completion of continuous 5 years of service they were regularized on 19.12.2018, under the scheme as notified by the Government of Mizoram vide notification dated 10.10.2008, which is annexure 2 in the writ petition. 3. The petitioners had made representations for placement to senior grade upon completion of continuous 8 years of service counting from the date of their initial contract engagement as granted to other similarly situated lecturers Page No.# 3/4 in terms of the notification No. G. 12017/2/2011 – EDN dated 04.12.2012. However, the claims of the petitioners were rejected by the state respondents vide impugned letters dated 30.07.2024, by referring to the impugned Office Memorandum dated 22.1.2021, and the provisions of the Mizoram Government Employees (Counting of Past Service) Rules, 2020 which provides for counting only 1/3rd of the contract period. 4. The petitioners at this stage states that the impugned Office Memorandum No. A. 38020/2/2019 dated 22/1/2021 was already quashed and set aside in WP(C) N0. 85 of 2024. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the Order dated 13.05.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 85 of 2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the impugned Office Memorandum dated 22.01.2021 is not sustainable and the petitioners therein were granted the benefit of counting their entire past service to upgrade to the senior grade pay scale. It was held that the Office Memorandum dated 22.01.2021 was issued in the form of an executive instruction and that the law is that the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be amended by way of executive orders, circulars or instructions. The learned counsel has therefore prayed that a similar benefit may be given to the petitioners in the present case as the facts and circumstances are similar and Page No.# 4/4 this case is squarely covered by the Judgment & Order of this Court in WP(C) No. 85 of 2024. 5. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate has fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case is similar to the case of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 85 of 2024 and similar order may be passed. 6. In view of the above observations, this petition is allowed. 7. The impugned letter dated 30.07.2024, whereby the petitioners were denied counting of their entire contractual service is set aside and quashed and the respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the benefit of counting their past entire contractual service as provided by the notification dated 04.12.2012, for up – gradation to senior grade. The respondents shall issue appropriate order within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. With the above directions, this petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant