Manipur High Court
John Telen Kom vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 20 January, 2022
1
JOHN IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
TELEN KOM AT IMPHAL
Digitally signed by WP(C)No.560 of 2019
JOHN TELEN KOM
Date: 2022.01.21 Smt. E. Sujata Devi, aged about 45 years, w/o (late) H.
09:26:51 +05'30'
Nishikanta Singh, R/o Moirangkhom Sougaijam Leirak, PO &
P.S: Imphal, District Imphal: West 795001, Manipur.
....... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner, Education(S), Government of
Manipur, Old Secretariat, PO & PS Imphal, District:
Imphal-West, Pin No.795001.
2. The Director (Education/S), Government of Manipur, PO
& PS: Lamphel, District: Imphal-West, Pin No.795004.
3. The Commissioner/Principal Secretary (Finance),
Government of Manipur, Secretariat, PO & PS Imphal,
District: Imphal-West, Pin No.795001.
.... Respondents
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 1
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. L.Anand, Adv.
For the Respondents : MS. Ch. Sundari, GA
Date of reserved : 13.12.2021
Date of Judgment & Order : 20.01.2022.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the
impugned order dated 15.11.2018 issued by the Secretary, Education (S)
Department, Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents to release
the entitled pay and allowances/back wages of Rs.10,24,802/- to thepetitioner
for the services rendered by the petitioner's husband late H.Nishikanta Singh,
an ad-hoc employee of the State Government, who died in harness while in
service as a primary teacher under the Department of Education (S), during
the period from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013.
[2] The case of the petitioner is that her husband was initially
appointed as primary teacher at Khelakhong L.P. School on ad-hoc basis for
an initial period of three months with effect from the date of joining and
thereafter, given post facto extension vide various orders. The petitioner's
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 2
husband continued to render an uninterrupted service with the legitimate
expectation that his service will be given post facto extension as earlier, but
after a brief illness, he expired on 2.10.2013. However, the pay and
allowances for the service rendered by the petitioner's husband was not
sanctioned.
[3] Further case of the petitioner is that she had filed W.P.(C) No.214
of2016 and the same was disposed of on 15.7.2016 with a direction that
the respondent State should verify the service of the petitioner's husband
from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013 and accordingly, release the pay and allowances
on such verification. Since the respondent State has not complied with the
order, the petitioner has filed Contempt Case (C) No.120 of 2017 and during
the pendency of the Contempt Case, the verification committee constituted
by the office of the second respondent, verified the service rendered by the
petitioner's husband by issuing an order dated 15.7.2017. By another order
dated 29.8.2017, the first respondent denied the verification report submitted
by the office of the second respondent. On 22.1.2018, in Contempt Case (C)
No.120 of 2017, this Court initiated contempt proceedings against the second
respondent. On 23.8.2018, the second respondent submitted to the first
respondent the financial involvement in connection with payment of pay and
allowances of ad-hoc employees and according to the said calculation, the
petitioner is entitled to get payment of pay and allowances of Rs.10,24,802/-
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 3
which the first respondent, by the impugned order dated 15.11.2018, has
arbitrarily deprived of her entitled claim. The Contempt Case (C) No.120 of
2017 was closed by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the
impugned order. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the writ
petition.
[4] Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating
that the term of ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner's husband was
extended from time to time and the last extension was issued on 27.11.2010
extending the term of ad-hoc appointment of 78 employees, including the
husband of the petitioner for a period up to 31.8.2010. Thereafter, no
extension was given to the husband of the petitioner. However, the petitioner
stated that after rendering service till 28.9.2013 and a brief illness, her
husband was expired on 2.10.2013 and hence, the petitioner claim pay and
allowance for the period from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013.
[5] It is stated that the ad-hoc services of the husband of the
petitioner was extended up to 31.8.2010 and hence, the late H. Nishikanta
Singh hasno right to continue in his ad-hoc service beyond the term of his ad-
hoc appointment or extension of his ad-hoc service. As such, continuation of
the ad-hoc service of the petitioner's husband beyond the date of extension
of his service and also without sanction of the competent authority has to be
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 4
treated as unauthorized service or voluntary service which may have been
rendered in collusion with the then Headmaster of the School. Despite the
letter of Director of Education (S) to the Head Master of Moirangkhom Junior
High Court to produce the duty roster of the petitioner's husband, the same
has not produced so far.
[6] It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner
filed another W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018 and the same was disposed of on
31.7.2018 with a direction to the respondent authorities to examine the
claim of the petitioner for remuneration for the services rendered by her
husband. Pursuant to the order dated 31.7.2018, the Commissioner issued
an order dated 15.11.2018 whereby informed that the husband of the
petitioner was not serving under the Education (S) Department after
31.8.2010. However, the petitioner filed Contempt Case (C) No.120 of 2017
and the said contempt case was closed by recording the impugned order.
According to the respondents 1 and 2, no legally entitled amount to be paid
for the services rendered by the petitioner's husband. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
[7] Assailing the impugned order dated 15.11.2018, learned counsel
for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's husband was initially appointed
on ad-hoc basis as primary teacher on 16.10.1998 in the scale of pay
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 5
of Rs.1200-1800 per month with dearness allowance and other allowances
as admissible under the rules for an initial period of three months with effect
from the date of joining. Subsequent upon the said appointment, the services
of petitioner husband was utilized at Moirangkhom Junior High School as
primary teacher till his sudden demise on 2.10.2013, after a very brief illness.
[8] Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during
the period of engagement of the service of the petitioner's husband, the
competent authority, by virtue of various extension orders dated 4.11.1999,
13.12.1999, 22.5.2000, 26.9.200, 14.10.2005, 3.8.2006, 2.5.2007, 19.3.2008
and 27.11.2010 issued from time to time, extended his service along with
other employees working as primary teachers under the Department of
Education (S) in different schools, after utilization and by giving a
retrospective effect. Accordingly, the pay and allowances of the petitioner's
husband were drawn from time to time after getting approval of extension
order on post facto basis and that the petitioner's husband during his life time
continued to render an uninterrupted service with the legitimate expectation
that his service will be given post facto extension as earlier.
[9] Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that vide the
extension order dated 27.11.2010, the petitioner's husband along with other
ad-hoc primary teachers who were working in different schools under the
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 6
Education Department (S) were given post facto extension till 31.8.2010 and
that though the services of the employees including that of the petitioner's
husband had been uninterruptedly utilized by the authorities even after the
expiry of the extended period of service given on 27.11.2019 which gave
extension of service upto 31.8.2010.
[10] Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that after
rendering the service till 28.9.2013, the petitioner's husband felt into a brief
illness and expired on 2.10.2013. Even though the petitioner's husband
service was utilized by the authorities till 28.9.2013, no extension orders were
issued by the competent authorities for the services rendered by the
petitioner's husband for about three years from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013.
[11] According to learned counsel for the petitioner, earlier the
petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.214 of 2016 before this Court and this Court,
by an order dated 15.7.2016, disposed of the writ petition directing the
State respondents to verify the service of the petitioner's husband from
1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013 and if it was found that the petitioner's husband served
as primary teacher, the State Government may release the pay and
allowances. Since the State respondents failed to comply with the directions
issued in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2016, the petitioner has filed Contempt Case
No.120 of 2016. Pending Contempt Case, the Principal Secretary, Education
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 7
(S) has produced a purported compliance order dated 29.8.2017 stating that
the ad-hoc service of the petitioner's husband was not extended beyond
31.8.2010 and therefore, he has no right to continue the service without
authority and there is no proper satisfactory report for attending school.
Hence, he is not entitled to pay and allowance with effect from 1.9.2010.
[12] Learned counsel then submitted that since order dated 29.8.2017
is not in consonance with the order dated 15.7.2016, issued notice to the first
respondent to show cause as to why he shall not be held guilty of contempt.
In fact, the Director, Education (S), in his letter dated 23.2.2018 addressed to
the Principal Secretary, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is entitled
to get pay and allowance of Rs.10,24,802/-. Subsequently, the Contempt
Case No.120 of 2017 was closed by this Court by an order dated 28.5.2018
giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 29.8.2017.
Challenging the order dated 29.8.2017, the petitioner has field W.P.(C)
No.652 of 2018 and to make payment of Rs.10,24,802/0 to the petitioner for
the service rendered by her husband.By an order dated 31.7.2018, the said
writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to work out
the entitlements of the petitioner after verifying the relevant records and
thereafter, make necessary payment. Since the respondent authorities failed
to comply with the said direction, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.2 of
2019 for non- compliance of the order. Pending Contempt Case No.2 of 2019,
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 8
the respondent authorities produced the impugned order dated 15.11.2018
rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Thus, this Court closed the Contempt
Case No.2 of 2019 giving liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with
law. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
[13] According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned
order has been passed in an arbitrary manner and without application of mind
to wrongfully deny the rightful claim of the petitioner for payment of the entitled
pay and allowance for the service rendered by her deceased husband during
his life time as ad-hoc primary teacher, particularly for the period from
1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013. He would submit that the competent authority is
seemingly adamant to deprive the legitimate claim of the petitioner, who have
not even spared of resorting to play blame game, as it is clear from the
different stands they have taken by stating that the report of the Director,
Education (S) is found very irregular at one instant (order dated 29.8.2017)
and that the petitioner's husband may have rendered service in collusion with
the then Headmaster in the other (order dated 15.11.2018), which is very
unfortunate and highly contemptuous.
[14] Placing reliance upon the order dated 30.3.2015 passed in
W.P.(C)No.1016 of 2014 filed by the similarly situated persons who served
as primary teachers on ad-hoc basis along with the petitioner's husband
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 9
under the Department of Education (S), learned counsel for the petitioner
prays for similar relief as granted therein. He would also draw the attention
of the Court that as against the order dated 30.3.2015 passed in W.P.(C)
No.1016 of 2014, the State respondent preferred SLP (C) Diary
No.33264/2018 and the same was dismissed on 12.12.2018 and
accordingly, the respondent State issued an order dated 24.4.2019 granting
payment of back wages for the period from 1.9.2010 to 30.3.2015 to 71
petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 and thus, prayed for similar relief to
the case of the petitioner's husband also.
[15] Per contra, learned Government Advocate contended that the
petitioner's husband is not similarly situated person as mentioned in W.P.(C)
No.1016 of 2014 and that there is any legally entitled amount to be paid for
the services rendered by the petitioner's husband. According to learned
Government Advocate, earlier the petitioner has approached this Court
claiming for the same benefit, but she could not establish the fact that her
husband was continuing his ad-hoc service under a valid order. Thus, this
Court, after examining the attending facts and circumstances, has closed the
Contempt Cases filed by the petitioner.
[16] Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the ad-hoc
services of the husband of the petitioner was extended up to 31.8.2010 and
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 10
hence, he has no right to continue in ad-hoc service beyond the term of his
ad-hoc appointment or extension of his ad-hoc service. As such the
continuation of the ad-hoc services of the petitioner's husband beyond the
date of extension of his service and also without sanction of the competent
authority has to be treated as unauthorized service or voluntary service
which may have been rendered in collusion with the then Headmaster of the
school.
[17] This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the
materials available on record.
[18] The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband was appointed
as primary teacher on ad-hoc basis for a period of three months initially with
effect from the date of his joining duty in the school as per the order of the
Director of Education (S) dated 16.10.1998 and the term of ad-hoc
appointment of her late husband was extended from time to time and the last
extension order was issued on 27.11.2010 extending the term of ad-hoc
appointment of 78 employees, including the petitioner's husband, for a
period up to 31.8.2010. Thereafter, no extension was given to the husband of
the petitioner. However, the petitioner's husband continued the service till
28.9.2013 and upon brief illness, her husband died on 2.10.2013. Hence,the
petitioner claims pay and allowance of her late husband for the period from
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 11
1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013. In support of her claim, the petitioner had produced
the order of this Court dated 30.3.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014,
wherein the respondent authorities were directed to verify the service and if it
is found that the petitioners therein rendered their service, the State was
directed to release their pay and allowances. According to the petitioner, as
against the order dated 30.3.2015 passed in the said writ petition, SLP has
been preferred and the same was dismissed and after the dismissal of the
SLP, the Commissioner, Education(S), vide order dated 24.4.2019 directed
to release payment of back wages for the period from 1.9.2010 to 30.3.2015
for 71 primary teachers with pay/wages to be fixedas applicable in Grade
Pay structure.
[19] Though the respondent authorities contend that the husband
of the petitioner is not similarly situated person as that of the petitioners in
W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014, nothing has been produced by the respondents to
show how the petitioner's husband is not similar to that of the petitioners in
W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014. On a perusal of the order dated 30.3.2015 passed
in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014, it is clear that the said writ petition was instituted
by 71 primary ad-hoc teachers praying for release of their pay and allowances
for the period from 1.9.2010 till the filing of the writ petition. In the case on
hand also, the petitioner claims that her husband is entitled for pay and
allowances from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013.
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 12
[20] At this juncture, learned Government Advocate urged that the
services of the petitioner's husband was not extended beyond 31.8.2010 and
therefore, he has no right to continue the service without authority and
there is no proper satisfactory report for attending the school and hence, he
is not entitled the pay and allowance with effect from 1.9.2010.
[21] It is pertinent to note that similar is the argument raised by the
respondent State in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 and this Court, upon hearing
the respective counsel, passed the following direction:
"Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with
the direction that the State respondents shall verify the
service of the petitioners more particularly the service
period from 1st September, 2010 till date for which the
petitioners claimed that they served as Primary Teachers.
On such verification if it is found that they had rendered
their service, the State Govt. may release their pay and
allowances.
This exercise shall be done within a period of 3 (three)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly."
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 13
[22] As against order dated 30.3.2015, the respondent State
preferred SLP (C) Diary No.33264 of 2018 and the same was also
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.12.2018, which is after
passing of the impugned order herein dated 15.11.2018. Pursuant to the
dismissal of the SLP, the Commissioner, Education(S) passed an order on
24.4.2019 to allow payment of back wages to all 71 petitioners in W.P.(C)
No.1016 of 2014. While issuing the order dated 24.4.2019, the
Commissioner observed as under:
"Whereas, the said U.O. No. of the Finance Department
(PIC)for back wages was subject to the condition that (i) Pay
fixation shall be done in GP pay structure of FD (PIC) and
notin AGP pay structure as AGP pay structure is applicable
only to regular employees and (ii) Constitute a Committee
headed by Director of Education (S) to verify the services of
the petitioners within a stipulated time.
Whereas the Education (S) Department has constituted a
Committee headed by the Director of Education (S) as
Chairman for verification of the adhoc services of the above
mentioned 71 (seven one) petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of
2014 vide order of even No. dated 19.03.2019.
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 14
And whereas the Committee has submitted its report vide
letter No.AO/25/AA/2009(10)-DE(S)IV dated 16.4.2019 of
the Director of Education (S) conveying that after due
examination of all available records, the 71 (seventy one) ex-
adhoc employees who are the petitioners in W.P.(C)
No.1016of 2014 were found to have rendered their service
as adhoc employees during the period from 01.09.2010 to
30.03.2015."
[23] Thus, it is clear that after passing the impugned order herein, the
Committee has submitted a report on 16.4.2019 to the effect that 71
petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 were found to have rendered
their service as ad-hoc employees during the period from 01.09.2010 to
31.03.2015. It is admitted by the respondent authorities that the
petitioner's husband also rendered services as ad-hoc primary teacher,
which is similar to that of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014. Thus,
it is clear that the impugned order dated 15.11.2018 was passed by the
Commissioner, Education (S) without verifying the service rendered by the
petitioner's husband. Moreover, while issuing the impugned order, there
is no such Committee to verify the ad-hoc service rendered by the
petitioner's husband. In the impugned order, the Commissioner, simply
stated that the continuation of petitioner's husband in ad-hoc service
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 15
without sanction of the competent authority has to be treated as
unauthorized service or voluntary service which may have been rendered
in collusion with the then Headmaster of the school concerned without
approval of the competent authority. The aforesaid view taken by the
Commissioner is admittedly contrary to the letter of the Director of
Education (S) dated 23.2.2018 addressed to the Principal Secretary (S),
wherein the Director has clearly stated the financial involvement of the
petitioner as Rs.10,24,802/-. The aforesaid conclusion of the Director is
pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2016 and pending
Contempt Case No.120 of 2017. Thus, it is clear that while issuing the
letter dated 23.2.2018, the respondent State is of the view that the
petitioner has to be paid Rs.10,24,802/- towards the pay and allowances
due to the services rendered by her late husband.
[24] It appears that in compliance of the order dated 15.7.2016
passedin W.P.(C) No.214 of 2016, the Principal Secretary, issued an order
dated 29.8.2017, wherein it has been observed as under:
"Under the above facts and circumstances stated above
and also after careful examination of the matter, the
Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that the adhoc
service of (Late) H.Nishikanta Singh was not extended
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 16
beyond 31.08.2010, hehas no right to continue service
without authority and thereis no proper satisfactory report
for attending school/Office. Hence, he is not entitled to pay
and allowance w.e.f. 01.09.2010."
[25] Challenging the said order dated 29.08.2017, the
petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018 contending that the petitioner's
husband service was utilized continuously and formal orders of
extensions were issued later on,as also can be seen from the last order
dated 27.11.2010 by which his service was extended upto 31.08.2010.
However, he continued to serve till 28.09.2013 as certified by the Director,
Education(S) as evident from the letter dated 15.7.2017 though no formal
extension order was issued.
[26] By the order dated 31.7.2018, this Court passed the
following order:
"In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of
with the direction to the respondent authorities to
examine the claim of the petitioner for remuneration for
the service rendered by her husband.
4. It goes without saying that, a person who has been
appointed by the authorities is entitled to receive such
remuneration as provided under rules for the service
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 17
rendered as non-payment for the service rendered will not
be permissible. The authorities will accordingly work out
the entitlements of the petitioner after verifying the relevant
records, and thereafter, make necessary payment, which
exercise shall be undertaken by the respondent authorities
within a period of three months from today, failing which, it
will carry an interest rate of 6% per annum on the entitled
amount due."
[27] Admittedly, this Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e. in
W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018 issued a positive direction to the respondent
authorities to work out the entitlements of the petitioner after verifying the
relevant records and thereafter, make necessary payment. As against the
said order, the respondent State has not preferred any appeal and allowed
the order to attain finality.
[28] Though the respondent State contend that they have
issued the impugned order pursuant to the direction of this Court in
W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018, admittedly, the impugned order has been passed
by the Commissioner, Education (S) in violation of the positive direction
of this Court. In fact, the impugned order has been passed while facing
the contempt in Contempt Case No.2 of 2019 filed against the order dated
31.7.2018 in W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018 in a hurriedly and arbitrary manner
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 18
stating that the order of the Court has been complied with. The approach
adopted by the respondent authorities is highly contemnable, as in the
earlier correspondence, the Director of School Education is of the view that
the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,24,802/- towards the pay and
allowance due to the petitioner's husband. When that being the case,
contrary to the same and contrary to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.652 of 2018, the Commissioner, Education (S) has issued the
impugned order, which is unsustainable in law.
[29] Taking advantage of the non-extension order to the
petitioner's husband, the respondent State cannot contend that the
services of the petitioner's husband was not utilized. In fact, a certificate
issued by the Head Mistress of Moirangkhom Junior Higher School dated
25.6.2015 has been enclosed along with the writ petition, wherein it has
been certified as under:
"This is to certify that Shri Huidrom Nishikanta Singh of
Yaiskul Sougaijam Leirak, Imphal, who has been
appointed as Ad-hoc Primary Teacher at Moirangkhom
Jr. High Schoolas per initial orders No.46-4-92-ED(V)(I)
dt. 16.10.1998 and extended from time to time upto the
end of 31.08.2010 vide order No.12(HC)81/2009-SE(S),
dated 27.11.2010 has been rendering his duty assigned
to him to this school till 28/09/2013."
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 19
[30] The petitioner has also enclosed the attendance registers
of her late husband to show that he had rendered services till 28.9.2013.
In fact, as stated supra, while addressing the letter dated 15.7.2018 to the
Principal Secretary, the Director of Education (S) has verified the said
certificate issued by the Head Mistress of the school and the attendance
registers of the petitioner's husband. When the Director of Education, who
is one of the authorities in the Education Department has verified the
certificate and the attendance registers and having satisfied and found to
be issued by the school Head Mistress, he had forwarded the same to the
Principal Secretary for necessary action. While so, contrary to the earlier
stand taken, the respondent authorities cannot contend that the aforesaid
certificate was issued in collusion with the then Head Mistress of the
school. Furthermore, the contention of the respondent State that the
petitioner has failed to establish that her husband was continuing his ad-
hoc service under a valid order, cannot also be countenanced.
[31] While passing the order in W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018, this
Court is ofthe view that the petitioner's husband who has been appointed
by the authorities and also rendered the service till 28.9.2013 is entitled to
pay and allowances and accordingly, directed the respondents to make
necessary payment to the petitioner as her husband died. While issuing
aforesaid direction, this Court had also observed that if the respondent
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 20
authorities failed to make payment within three months from the date of
passing of the order, the amount entitled will carry an interest rate of 6%
per annum. This shows that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court is
of the view that the Court has been satisfied by the petitioner that her
deceased husband rendered services from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013 and
therefore, she is entitled to the pay and allowances of her husband. If
really, the respondent State is aggrieved by the said order, they can very
well prefer an appeal, but they have failed to do so. In the absence of any
appeal and having allowed the order to attain finality, it can be concluded
that contrary to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018, the impugned
order came to be passed. This Court is of the view that the petitioner's
husband is similarly placed person as in the case of the petitioners in
W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 who are also working as ad-hoc primary
teachers and they have been allowed payment of back wages for the
period from 1.9.2010 to 30.03.2015.
[32] It is not the case of the respondent State that the petitioner
is financially well and is in good employment and was earning monthly
income.On the other hand, the records reveal that the petitioner is a widow
and lost her husband and also living without any Government job or
other employment. She is living in a miserable condition of life without any
source of income of her own with her two daughters, who are presently
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 21
studying. Only with the little monetary support given by her in-laws, the
petitioner is running from pillar to post to make ends meet. As could be
seen from the records and also as narrated above, from the year 2016
onwards, the petitioner is struggling by filing writ petition after writ petition
to get the entitled amount of her deceased husband. When this Court
issued directions in the earlier writ petitions to consider the claim of the
petitioner and on account of the non-compliance of the said direction, she
had filed Contempt Cases would show that the petitioner has been
dragged unnecessarily to the litigation by taking advantage of the non-
extension of the service of the petitioner's husband beyond 31.8.2010.
[33] It is pertinent to point out that the ad-hoc appointments are
made by the State Government from time to time in respect of various
persons in many departments. It is the first ad-hoc appointment orders only
which prescribe a specific period, say for six months or three months. But
the subsequent orders which extended the period of ad-hoc appoints are
hardly never issued by the State Government before the expiry of the
period of ad- hoc appointments. This is, admittedly, evident from the
various orders issued by the State Government in the instant case itself.
It is also seen from the records that the subsequent extension orders
issued by the State Government, in various cases including the present
case, extending the period of ad-hoc appointments, have always
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 22
condoned the unauthorized service rendered by the alleged employees
whose salaries have been paid later. If that be the case, there is no reason
as to why the alleged unauthorized service of the petitioner's husband
shall not be condoned as has been done in the past in respect of a
large of persons and the benefits so extended to them shall not be
extended to him as well. An illustration is given in the case of W.P.(C)
No.1016 of 2014.
[34] After a series of litigations, the matter has been finally
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Diary No.332764 of 2018
dated 12.12.2018, which was preferred against the order dated 30.3.2015
passed in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 and pursuant to the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, an order dated 24.4.2019 has been passed by
the respondent authority allowing payment of back wages for the period
01.09.2010 to 30.03.2015 for 71 similarly situated ad-hoc primary
teachers.In the light of the above order dated 24.4.2019, this Court is
of the view that the petitioner's husband is similarly situated person and
accordingly, he is entitled payment of back wages for the period from
01.09.2010 to 28.09.2013 for the services rendered by him as primary
teacher.
[35] As held supra, the impugned order has been passed in an
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 23
arbitrary manner and without applying the mind and therefore, the same
is liable tobe quashed and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the
amount of Rs.10,24,802/- as calculated by the Director, Education (S) for
the payment of back wages/salary of the service rendered by her husband
with effect from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013.
[36] In the result,
(i) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 15.11.2018 issued by the
Commissioner, Education (S), Government
of Manipur is setaside.
(ii) The respondent authorities are directed to
release the entitled pay and allowances/back
wages i.e. Rs.10,24,802/- as calculated by the
Director, Education (S) to the petitioner for the
services rendered by her deceased husband
late H.Nishikanta Singh, an ad-hoc employee
of the State Government, who died in harness
while being utilized as a primary teacher under
the Department of Education (S) during the
period from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013.
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 24
(iii) The said exercise is directed to be completed
by the respondent authorities within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
(iv) No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
John Kom
WP(C)No.560 of 2019 Page 25
