Honey Chara vs The State Of Manipur & 3 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 87 Mani

                                                                        Item No. 32


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                       AT IMPHAL

                                   W.P. (C) No. 96 of 2021

Honey Chara
                                                   .... Petitioner/s
               - Versus -

The State of Manipur & 3 Ors.
                                                 .... Respondent/s

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

25.03.2021

Heard Mr. BR Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Mr. Athouba Kh., learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1,

2 & 3 and Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No. 4.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is presently holding

the post of Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) Manipur on regular basis and presently

she is the senior most incumbent in the Grade of Addl. Director (Hort. & SC)

Manipur. The private respondent No. 4 was also earlier holding the post of

Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) Manipur on regular basis and she was allowed to

function as in charge Director of (Hort. & SC). Subsequently, the respondent

No. 4 retired from service w.e.f. 31.10.2020 on attaining the age of

superannuation. Thereafter, the State Government engaged the respondent

No. 4 as Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) and in-charge Director (Hort. & SC) on

contract basis after she have retired from service on attaining the age of

superannuation.

W.P. (C) No. 96 of 2021 Page 1 Having been aggrieved by the said engagement of the respondent

No. 4, the present writ petition has been filed assigning the contract

engagement of the private respondent No. 4. It has been submitted by the

counsel for the petitioner that such engagement of the private respondent No.

4 as Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) and in-charge Director (Hort. & SC) on

contract basis after her retirement is ultra-vires the provisions of FR 56 (d) as

well as the larger policy of the State Government as contained in

Government's orders dated 20.04.2000 and 11.05.2017, wherein, the

Government has prohibited any extension of service/re-employment after

retirement from service.

The learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in the

present writ petition has already been decided by this Court by holding that

such engagement of an incumbent on contract basis after his retirement is

contrary to the provisions under FR 56 (d) and such contract engagement is

illegal. It has been submitted that such order of this Court has already been

upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

In this view of the matter, it has been urged by the learned counsel

that the engagement of the respondent No. 4 on contract basis is not

sustainable and accordingly, it needs to be stayed during the pendency of this

writ petition.

Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No. 4 vehemently submitted that the petitioner is not at all eligible for

promotion to the post of Director (Hort. & SC) as she has not got the requisite

qualifying service as prescribed under the relevant recruitment rules and

W.P. (C) No. 96 of 2021 Page 2 accordingly she has no locus to challenge the engagement of the private

respondent No. 4.

It is also been submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the

shortage of man-power in the Department, the State Cabinet has taken a

conscious decision to engage the respondent No. 4 on contract basis after

her retirement due to the exigency of the work and in the public interest and

therefore no interference is called for from this Court with regard to the

engagement of the respondent No. 4 on contract basis.

Mr. Athouba Kh., learned GA, also submitted in similar lines as has

been advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the

legality and sustainability of the engagement of an incumbent on contract

basis after his/her retirement from service on attaining the age of

superannuation has already been decided by this Court in earlier cases and

accordingly, this Court is bound to follow the ratio laid down by this Court in its

judgments & orders passed in earlier cases.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the

engagement of the private respondent No. 4 on contract basis after her

retirement from service is not legally sustainable and accordingly, as an

interim measure, it is directed that till the next date the engagement of the

respondent No. 4 as Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) and in-charge Director (Hort.

& SC) on contract basis shall not be given effect to and the respondent No. 4

should not be allowed to function as Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) and in-charge

Director (Hort. & SC) on contract basis.

W.P. (C) No. 96 of 2021 Page 3 List this case again on 16.4.2021 for final disposal of the case.

In the meantime, the parties are directed to exchange their

respective affidavits.

A copy of this order be furnished to both the counsel appearing for

the parties through their whatsapp/e-mail.

JUDGE

Sapana

Yumk Digitally signed by Yumkham Rother ham Date:

2021.03.26

Rother 13:20:16 +05'30'

W.P. (C) No. 96 of 2021 Page 4