Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040008832023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/306/2023 Mazing Taying Son of Shri M. Taying, Resident of Ngorlung, PO and PS Ruksin, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh District, Arunachal Pradesh No 7005686228 VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 2 Ors. Represented by the Chief Secretary Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 2:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Women and Child development (ICDS) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Director(ICDS) Age: 0 Occupation : Women and Child Development Department Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Uttam Deka, Chorpok Modi,N Rama,A Saring,T Char,N Tania,K Gara,Nabam Chatum,Bomyom Ori,M Tunar Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. P. Pangu, GA (AP), BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Page No.# 2/6 O R D E R Date : 02.07 .2025. Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned State Counsel, Arunachal Pradesh for the State respondents. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 02.03.2023, passed by the Director, Women and Child Development. Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 09.12.2022, in WP(C) No. 480(AP)/2022, the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner to revert him back to the post of UDC in the Department of Women and Child Development, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is for reverting him back to the post of UDC, in which he was appointed on contractual basis, under the Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh for a period of one month, from the post of Welfare Officer in Juvenile Observation cum Special Home, Pasighat, under the Mission Vatsalya Scheme (Erstwhile ICPS/CPS), a Centrally sponsored scheme. 4. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as UDC on contract basis, initially for a period of one month, vide order 12.03.2007 and his service as a contractual UDC has been extended from time to time. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the initial appointment of the petitioner is Page No.# 3/6 on the substantial post of UDC and allowed to continue by extending his service and thereafter appointed as Welfare Officer under the Mission Vatsalya Scheme, the petitioner may be reverted back to his original post of UDC in the Department, as the service of the petitioner as Welfare Officer under the Mission Vatsalya Scheme is uncertain and there is no likelihood of regularisation of his service in future or continuance of the scheme further. 5. Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as UDC, was originally under the Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department in the ICDS Scheme, which has been adopted by the State Government and the Mission Vatsalya Scheme is purely a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, wherein the petitioner has been subsequently allowed to work as Welfare Officer. Therefore, there is a uncertainty in the service prospects of the petitioner, as the post of UDC in which the petitioner was appointed is under the State Government and the Welfare Officer in which he is presently serving is purely a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, which may be discontinued any time, which will affect the future prospects of being regularisation in the service and as such the petitioner may be directed to revert back to the post of UDC, where there is a likelihood of consideration for regularisation in future. 6. Ms. P. Pangu, learned State Counsel, Arunachal Pradesh on the other hand submits that the petitioner was appointed as UDC on contract basis, only for a period of one month and thereafter, the service of the petitioner was extended from time to time. The petitioner was subsequently appointed as Welfare Officer and allowed to serve at Juvenile Observation cum Special Home, Pasighat on contractual basis under the same scheme. The petitioner has joined Page No.# 4/6 as Welfare Officer on his volition and on such acceptance of the service of Welfare Officer, the contractual appointment as UDC gets severed. She further submits that there is no provision of DPC for consideration of promotion or regularization of contractual staff, as the petitioner has been appointed purely on contractual basis, under the Scheme, either as UDC or Welfare Officer. Therefore, the question of reverting the petitioner to the post of UDC, which is no longer in existence after the appointment of the petitioner as Welfare Officer under the Scheme does not arise. She further submits that the service condition for all the contractual posts, either as UDC or Welfare Officer, for that matter all other posts are same and there is no question of regularization. She submits that in view of the above, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 02.03.2023 and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Due consideration has been extended to the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed as UDC on contract basis for one month from 01.03.2017 to 31.03.2017, at monthly fixed salary in Juvenile Home, Pasighat, vide order dated 12.03.2007. His service was extended from time to time. Thereafter, while the petitioner was serving as UDC on extended contractual basis in the said Juvenile Home, the post of UDC was upgraded to the post of Welfare Officer, with higher monthly salary in which the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and his service has been extended from time to time, consequent to which the petitioner is still serving as Welfare Officer. It is noted that the petitioner was appointed as UDC on contractual basis under the ICPS/CPS Project, a Centrally Sponsored Scheme which is stated to Page No.# 5/6 have been adopted by the State Government, which is now renamed as Mission Vatsalya Scheme, which is also a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, implemented by the Department of Women and Child Development in Society mode as per the guidelines. The engagement of manpower under the scheme are purely on contractual basis. 9. Evidently, the initial appointment of the petitioner as UDC in the Department is purely on contract basis, with a consolidated fixed pay. It provides that the appointment is purely on contractual basis, which will not confer any right to claim for any regular post for appointment. It also appears that the post of UDC in the erstwhile ICPS/CPS scheme has been upgraded to Welfare Officer with enhanced fixed salary, which is now renamed as Mission Vatsalya Scheme, a Centrally Sponsored Scheme. 10. Essentially, the petitioner is seeking reversion from the post of Welfare Officer to the post of UDC, as he apprehends that his service as Welfare Officer may not be regularized or discontinued and anticipated that the post of UDC may be regularized in future, to which this Court is of the view that since the petitioner was appointed as UDC on contractual basis and the post of UDC has been upgraded as Welfare Officer under Mission Vatsalya Scheme as well as the scheme of appointment under the Scheme is on contractual basis, the petitioner would not have any right to claim for reversion in view of the fact that the petitioner has been appointed to an upgraded post of Welfare Officer. Moreso, it is not a case of having lien in the post of UDC. Even, if the post of UDC under the Department is under the process of regularisation, the petitioner would not have any right as the appointment itself is on contractual basis for a period of one month, although extended from time to time, and the petitioner has been Page No.# 6/6 appointed to an upgraded post of Welfare Officer under the Mission Vatsalya Scheme. 11. Having considered the fact that the petitioner was appointed as UDC on contract basis for one month and he having been appointed subsequently to an upgraded post as Welfare Officer, in which the petitioner has been allowed to continue under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme and as the scheme envisages engagement of manpower on contract basis as per the guidelines, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 02.03.2023, passed by the Director, Women and Child Development. Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner to revert him back to the post of UDC. 12. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. Costs made easy. JUDGE Comparing Assistant