Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040013302025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/363/2025 Smti Hage Yabyang Wife of Shri Hage Talley, residence of Village Hari, PO and PS Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Secretary, Agriculture, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director of Agriculture Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The District Agriculture Officer Lower Subansiri District Ziro Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Smti Dani Yaku Age: 0 Occupation : Wife of Shri Dani Khoda Office of DAO Ziro PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Hage Lampu, Joram Sanjay,Khyoda Moses Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (Agriculture),Lissing Perme,Arun Yun,Maryum Sora,Geli Taye,D Ado,Kemo Lollen BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 13.05.2026 Heard Mr. Hage Lampu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Lissing Perme, learned standing counsel, Agriculture Department, for Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4; Ms. Riyum Basar, learned Government Advocate, for Respondent No. 3; and Mr. Kemo Lollen, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Page No.# 2/4 private respondent No. 5. 2. The case of the petitioner is that by order dated 04.01.2016, she was appointed as a Skilled Contingency Staff under the District Agriculture Office, Ziro. Subsequently, by order dated 18.06.2019, her service was regularized/promoted to the post of Peon pursuant to the DPC held on 18.06.2019. However, the said regularization was challenged, and this High Court vide order dated 02.06.2023, passed in WP(c)295(AP)2020, set aside the Regularizations order and the same stood affirmed by the Division Bench of this High Court by order dated 21.02.2024 passed in WA No.19/2023, and subsequently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 15.03.2024 passed in SLP (C) No.6833/2024. Consequently, by order dated 31.07.2024, the petitioner was terminated/discontinued from the post of Peon w.e.f. 01.08.2024. However, no order was passed reverting the petitioner to her original post of Skill Contingency. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite rendering service continuously, she has neither been reverted to her original post nor paid salary from 01.08.2024. Therefore, by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent authority to revert her back in the post of Skilled Contingency in terms of her earlier appointment order dated 04.01.2016 by restoring the same seniority position in the cadre of Skilled Contingency Staff in the Department and also to release her salary since 01.08.2024. 4. The respondent Department of Agriculture by filing the affidavit-in- opposition in the matter, contended that another person namely; respondent No.5 has already been appointed against the resultant vacancy created due to promotion of the petitioner and therefore no vacant post of Skill Contingency is Page No.# 3/4 presently available under the District Agriculture Office, Ziro. 5. However, today learned Standing Counsel for the Department has placed written instruction dated 07.05.2026, issued by the respondent authority, whereby it is stated that 1 (one) post of peon, arising out of retirement of late Mr. Bamin Taw Ex-peon and subsequent termination of the petitioner, is still lying vacant under District Agriculture Office, Ziro. 6. Upon consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that after quashing/termination of the petitioner’s regularization/ promotion, the respondent authority ought to have reverted the petitioner to her original post of Skill Contingency instead of creating complications by filling up the resultant vacancy. 7. This Court is also of the view that the petitioner, having admittedly rendered service and the department having utilized her services, cannot be denied consideration for restoration to her original post and consequential payment for period she actually worked. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i). The respondent authorities shall convene appropriate DPC/selection process for filling up the vacant post of peon in accordance with law from amongst eligible Skill Contingency staff. (ii). Upon promotion of senior-most eligible Skill Contingency staff against the existing vacant post of peon, the resultant vacancy in the post of Skill Contingency shall be utilized for reverting/restoring the petitioner to her original post with continuity in seniority. Page No.# 4/4 (iii). The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iv). Since the service of the petitioner has admittedly been utilized by the department, the respondent shall also examine and release admissible wages/salary payable to the petitioner for the period she actually rendered service, in accordance with law. (v). The appointment of respondent No.5 is not disturbed by this order. 9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant