SHILLONG, June 15: Former KHADC Chief Executive Member (CEM), Pyniaid Sing Syiem, has urged the VPP-led Executive Committee (EC) to apply its proposed recruitment policy prospectively rather than retrospectively and regularise the services of long-serving employees.
Syiem questioned the EC’s decision to target 43 employees under the new policy, arguing that if retrospective implementation is the aim, then it should extend back to the inception of the Council.
He noted that several employees had been appointed by previous administrations and many had worked for years as casual staff.
He cited the example of one such employee whose service was regularised after working for 21 years as a casual worker during his tenure as CEM.
Instead of revoking appointments, Syiem suggested the EC should focus on regularising the services of long-serving employees.
He also highlighted that, based on a government notification, unskilled daily wage workers are entitled to Rs 525 per day equivalent to over Rs 16,000 per month.
Syiem however said that KHADC reportedly pays only around Rs 5,000 per month which is inadequate.
The former KHADC CEM urged the EC to explore avenues for mobilising resources rather than targeting existing staff.
He further claimed that all political parties, including Congress, NPP, HSPDP, and KHNAM, have been involved in appointments in the KHADC.
Syiem said that even VPP chief Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit, during his term as CEM, allegedly appointed around 16 staff.
Meanwhile, Syiem welcomed the High Court’s interim relief staying the KHADC order that sought to revoke the regularisation of a staff member.
The order, passed on May 30, cancelled the regularised status of one Banrikupar Suting and reverted him to his previous position as a casual enforcement constable. Suting had been regularised on August 14, 2024, following nearly five years of service, based on the decision of the KHADC Executive Committee.
Justice B Bhattacharjee, who presided over the case, observed that the Council’s decision lacked procedural fairness. “The impugned office order prima facie does not indicate that the applicant was issued with a notice or provided with any opportunity of hearing,” the Court noted.
While the KHADC claimed that the regularisation violated applicable rules, the Court highlighted the absence of any specific mention as to which rules had been breached.
