Manipur High Court
Shri Salam Dhaneshwar Singh vs State Of Manipur Represented By ... on 10 January, 2023
[1]
SHOUGRA Digitally
by
signed
KPAM SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA
DEVANAN SINGH
DA SINGH Date: 2023.01.10
13:55:12 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 242 of 2019
1. Shri Salam Dhaneshwar Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o (L)
S. Yaimabi Singh of Kabowakching Village, P.O. & P.S.
Nambol, Bishnuppur District, Manipur.
2. Smt. K. Pashot Devi, aged about 58 yeas, W/o O. Sanajaoba
Singh of Oinam Village, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, Bishnupur
District, Manipur.
3. Shri N. Ibemnungshi Devi, aged about 58 years, W/o Ch.
Brajamani Singh of Kabowakching Village, P.O. & P.S.
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur.
...Petitioners
-Versus -
1. State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary, Education (S), at Manipur Secretariat, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal, Pin - 795001.
2. The Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, at
Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Pin - 795004.
.... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioners :: Mr. O. Chittaranjan, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. A. Vashum, Govt. Advocate.
Date of Hearing :: 19-10-2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 10-01-2023
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[1] Heard Mr. O. Chittaranjan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents.
WP(C) No. 242 of 2019 Contd.../-
[2]
[2] The facts of the present case in a nutshell is that the petitioner
No. 1 was initially appointed as Substitute Teacher for a period of six
months in Education (S) Department by an order dated 01-04-1991
issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. The
petitioner No. 2 was initially appointed as Assistant Arts Graduate
Teacher on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months by an order dated
27-02-1991 issued by the Commissioner (Education), Government of
Manipur. The petitioner No. 3 was initially appointed as Assistant
Graduate Teacher on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months by an order
dated 28-02-1991 issued by the Commissioner (Education), Government
of Manipur. The period of ad-hoc services of all the petitioners were
extended from time to time by the Government by issuing various orders
and the petitioners rendered their services on ad-hoc basis continuously
and without any break till the date they were appointed on regular basis.
[3] On the recommendation of the Screening Committee held on
29-08-1994 and 30-08-1994 and the approval of the Government, all the
petitioners were appointed as Graduate Teachers on regular basis in the
Education (S) Department by order dated 31-08-1994 issued by the
Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. Thereafter, the
petitioners rendered their services as Graduate Teachers on regular
basis. The present writ petition had been filed with the prayer for directing
the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for granting
retrospective regularization with effect from the date of their initial ad-hoc
appointment only for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits.
WP(C) No. 242 of 2019 Contd.../-
[3]
[4] It is the case of the petitioners that they fulfilled all the essential
qualifications prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules at the time of
their initial appointment as Teachers in the Education (S), Department),
Government of Manipur and they always discharged their duties very
sincerely and faithfully and their superior Officers never found the
petitioners unfit, unsuitable or inefficient in their service conduct and
character.
It is also the case of the petitioners that since the date of their
initial appointment on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 01-04-1991, 27-02-1991 and
28-02-1991 till the date of their appointment on regular basis w.e.f.
31-08-1994, they continued to render their services as Graduate
Teachers on ad-hoc basis uninterruptedly and without any break and
according, they are entitled to have the period of their ad-hoc services to
be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary and other
retirement benefits. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that the State
Government counted the period of ad-hoc services of many employees
of the State Government who are similarly situated as the petitioners, as
qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits,
however the Government did not consider the case of the petitioners for
such service link up. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners submitted a
representation dated 14-01-2019 to the concerned authorities of the State
Government requesting for retrospective regularization of their service
w.e.f. the date of their initial ad-hoc appointment for the purpose of
availing pensionary and other retiral benefits.
WP(C) No. 242 of 2019 Contd.../-
[4]
[5] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court as well as this court have passed several
judgments and orders in various writ petitions filed by many persons
similarly situated as the petitioners wherein directions were given to the
authorities to count the period of ad-hoc services rendered by those
persons as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary and other
retiral benefits and that the State Government have implemented all those
directions issued by the High Court by issuing various orders thereby
allowing the linking up of the period of ad-hoc services as qualifying
service for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits. By way of
giving instances, the learned counsel draw the attention of this court to
the order dated 30-01-2001 passed by the Gauhati High Court in WP(C)
No. 1450 of 2000 and judgment dated 06-03-2006 passed by the Gauhati
High Court in WP(C) No. 1300 of 2005.
The learned counsel also draw the attention of this court to the
orders dated 04-05-2001 and dated 27-09-2014 issued by the Secretariat,
Education Department. On careful perusal of the aforesaid judgments and
orders passed by the Gauhati High Court and this court as well as the
aforesaid orders issued by the Government in compliance with the
directions given by the High Court, it can be clearly seen that counting of
continuous ad-hoc services rendered by ad-hoc employees prior to their
regular appointment as qualifying service only for the purpose of
pensionary and other retiral benefits were allowed. Accordingly, this court
find considerable force in the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.
WP(C) No. 242 of 2019 Contd.../-
[5]
[6] In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents
No. 1 and 2, the only stand taken by the respondents in opposing the
claims of the petitioners is that the requirement for linking up the past
ad-hoc services of the petitioners as provided under the DP's Office
Memorandum dated 05-07-2003 is that their initial ad-hoc appointment
should have been made on the recommendation of a duly constituted
Selection Committee/ DPC and since the initial appointment of the
petitioners were not recommended by a Selection Committee/DPC, they
are not entitled to the relief claimed by them.
[7] Under the aforesaid DP's Office Memorandum dated 05-07-2003
providing linking up of services rendered on ad-hoc /officiating basis for
counting as qualififying services for pension, it is clearly provided, inter
alia at para 1(ii) of the said O.M. that in cases where the Hon'ble Court
has directed the Government to regularise the services retrospectively
with effect from the dates they were appointed on ad-hoc or officiating
basis only for pensionary benefits, the court orders may be complied with
in cases of ad-hoc employees who become regular appointee by way of
direct recruitment duly recommended by a competent DPC. In view of
such provisions provided under the said O.M. dated 05-07-2003 and the
various judgments and orders passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court
and this court as well as various orders issued by the Government in
compliance with the judgments and orders passed by the High Court
allowing the counting of the period of past ad-hoc services rendered by
ad-hoc employees prior to their regular appointment as qualifying service
only for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits, this court did
not find any reasons or ground for not granting similar benefits to the
WP(C) No. 242 of 2019 Contd.../-
[6]
present petitioners for the simple reason that the petitioners are similarly
situated with those ad-hoc employees.
In the result, the present writ petition is allowed by directing the
respondents to consider the cases of the present petitioners for linking up
the period of their past ad-hoc services from the date of their initial
ad-hoc appointments till the date of their regular appointments as
qualifying service only for the purpose of availing pensionary and other
retiral benefits. It is made clear that the whole exercise should be
completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed
of. Parties are to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
WP(C) No. 242 of 2019 Contd.../-
