Manipur High Court
Shri Potsangbam Ranjana Devi vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 10 January, 2023
[1]
SHOUGRA Digitally
by
signed
KPAM SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA
DEVANAN SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date: 2023.01.10
DA SINGH 13:56:32 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019
Shri Potsangbam Ranjana Devi, aged about 55 years, W/o Th.
Ibochou Singh, a resident of Takyel Khongbal, Thoudam Leirak, P.O.
Langjing, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Pin
No. 795113.
...Petitioner
-Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Education (S), Government of
Manipur, New Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner, Finance, Government of
Manipur, New Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Commissioner/ Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur,
New Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur - 795001.
4. The Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur,
Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur,
Pin - 795004.
.... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioner :: Mr. L. Raju, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. A. Vashum, Govt. Advocate
Date of Hearing :: 11-10-2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 10-01-2023
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[1] Heard Mr. L. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[2]
[2] The present writ petition had been filed with the prayer for
quashing the impugned order dated 30-06-2017 issued by the Principal
Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur thereby rejecting the
claim of the petitioner for payment of her pay and allowances for the
period from 01-04-2001 till 29-12-2016 coupled with the prayer for
directing the respondents to release the petitioner's pay and allowances
for the period from 01-04-2001 till 29-12-2016 within a stipulated period.
[3] The brief facts of the present case is that the petitioner was
initially appointed as Craft Instructor (Pottery) in the Directorate of
Education (S), Government of Manipur on ad-hoc basis for a period of
six months by an order dated 01-07-1998 issued by the Director of
Education (S), Government of Manipur. The period of ad-hoc service of
the petitioner was extended from time to time till 31-03-2001 by issuing
various orders with the approval of the Government. It is to be pointed out
here that the extension of the period of ad-hoc service of the petitioner
was done ex-post facto, for example, the ad-hoc service of the petitioner
for the period from 01-04-1999 to 30-09-1999 was extended by issuing
an order only on 06-12-2005 by the Commissioner of Education(S),
Government of Manipur. So also the ad-hoc service of the petitioner for
the period from 01-10-1999 to 31-03-2000, 01-04-2000 to 30-09-2000
and 01-10-2000 to 31-03-2001 was extended ex-post facto by issuing
orders dated 04-08-2006, 20-10-2006 and 10-01-2007 respectively by the
Commissioner of Education (S), Government of Manipur.
[4] When the ad-hoc service of the petitioner was not extended after
31-03-2001 and as the service of the petitioner was utilized by the
Government, the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II wrote a letter dated
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[3]
22-09-2008 to the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur
requesting the latter for extending the ad-hoc service of the petitioner
w.e.f. 01-04-2001 to 31-12-2008 and for payment of her back-wages/
salary. When the Government failed to extend the ad-hoc service of the
petitioner and to release her back-wages/salary, the Zonal Education
Officer, Zone-II again wrote a letter dated 09-07-2010 addressed to the
Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur with the request for
extension of the ad-hoc service of the petitioner w.e.f. 01-04-2001 till the
date of the said letter.
[5] On 14-02-2011, the Additional Director of Education (S/V) wrote
a letter to the Commissioner of Education (S), Government of Manipur,
requesting for extension of the ad-hoc service of the petitioner w.e.f.
01-04-2001 till the date of the said letter. In response to the said letter
dated 14-02-2011, the Deputy Secretary, Education (S), Government of
Manipur wrote a letter dated 24-03-2011 requesting the Additional
Director of Education (S/V) to submit certain information in connection
with the proposal for extension of the ad-hoc service of the petitioner. In
response to this letter, the Additional Director of Education (S/V) wrote a
letter dated 21-04-2011 to the Deputy Secretary, Education (S) stating,
inter alia, that there are only ten ad-hoc employees, including the present
petitioner, whose ad-hoc service have not been extended and that the
period of their ad-hoc service to be extended varies as per their last date
of extension. In the said letter, the Additional Director of Education (S/V)
also made a request for extension of the term of ad-hoc service of the
said ten persons, including the petitioner, for the period as indicated
against their names as shown in the Annexure enclosed in the said letter.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[4]
[6] The Deputy Secretary, Education (S) again wrote a letter dated
13-05-2011 requesting the Additional Director of Education (S/V) to verify
the genuineness of the appointment orders of the said ten ad-hoc
employees including the present petitioner. In response, the Additional
Director of Education (S/V) wrote a letter dated 07-06-2011, addressed to
the Deputy Secretary, Education(S), enclosing therein the list of ten
non-teaching ad-hoc employees, including the petitioner, after due
verification of the genuineness of their appointment orders along with
relevant documents for extension of the period of their ad-hoc service. In
the said list of ten non-teaching ad-hoc employees, the name of the
petitioner appears at Sl. No. 1. Acting on the proposal made by the
Additional Director of Education (S/V) in his letter dated 07-06-2011, the
Principal Secretary of Education (S), Government of Manipur, issued an
order dated 08-11-2012 thereby extending the period of ad-hoc service of
ten non-teaching ad-hoc employees ex-post facto w.e.f. the dates
indicated against their names. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner,
her name was not included in the said extension order whereas the name
of the nine other ad-hoc employees were included. In place of the
petitioner, one Laboratory Assistant whose name was not included in the
earlier proposal submitted by the Additional Director of Education (S/V)
was included and the name of the petitioner was excluded without
assigning any reason. Having been aggrieved, the petitioner approached
this court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 997 of 2014 for
redressing her grievances. The said writ petition was disposed of on
17-06-2015 by directing the authorities to verify as to whether the
petitioner rendered her service during the period claimed by her and if it
was found that the petitioner rendered her service during the period
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[5]
claimed by her, her entitlement should be calculated and to pay her pay
and allowances. It was also made clear that the whole exercise should be
completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy
of the said order.
[7] Pursuant to the directions given by this court, the Secretariat,
Education Department requested the Director of Education (S) to submit
a detail report as to whether the petitioner actually rendered her service
or not. The Director in turn requested the Zonal Education Officer,
Zone-II to examine and verify as to whether the petitioner had actually
worked/ rendered her service for the period from 01-04-2001 to
31-03-2011 and to submit a comprehensive report along with relevant
documents by writing a letter dated 14-09-2015. In response to the letter
of the Director of Education (S), the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II
submitted a report on 01-10-2015 to the effect that the petitioner has been
rendering service in his office without any break till date and also
furnished relevant documents and Duty certificate in support of the said
report.
Despite the submission of verification report by the concerned
Zonal Education Officer to the effect that the petitioner had been
rendering her service in his office till date, the authorities did not extend
the period of ad-hoc service of the petitioner or pay any of her back-
wages, accordingly, the petitioner approached this court again by filing
Contempt Case (C) No. 38 of 2016.
[8] In the present petition, the petitioner also enclosed a Notification
dated 28-12-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S) notifying to the
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[6]
502 (five hundred and two) ad-hoc employees of the Department that a
Special Class-III DPC for regularization of their service was scheduled on
30th to 31st December, 2016 at the Directorate of Education (S) and that
all the concerned ad-hoc employees were directed to personally appear
before the said Special DPC. In the said list of 502 ad-hoc employees,
the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 502 thereby indicating that
the authorities acknowledge that the petitioner was rendering service on
ad-hoc basis. The petitioner also enclosed a Duty Certificate dated
29-12-2016 issued by the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II, Government
of Manipur to the effect that the petitioner has been rendering her service
in the office till date.
[9] Despite the verification report submitted by the concerned
authorities of the Directorate of Education (S) and the official records
furnished in support of the fact that the petitioner has been rendering her
service without any break and the Government utilised her service without
giving her any salary or wages, the Principal Secretary, Education (S),
Government of Manipur issued the impugned order dated 30-06-2017
thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for extension of her ad-hoc
service and payment of her arrear salaries. On the basis of the said
impugned order, the contempt case filed by the petitioner had also been
closed. Having been aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court again
by filing the present writ petition for redressing her grievances.
[10] Mr. L. Raju, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the authority issued the impugned order only on the ground that the
petitioner has no right to continue her ad-hoc service beyond the term of
her ad-hoc appointment/ extension of her ad-hoc service and that if any
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[7]
person continue his/ her ad-hoc service without proper extension of his/
her ad-hoc appointment, it shall be treated as un-authorized service and
trespasser without authority and on such basis it was held that the
petitioner was not entitled to any pay and allowances w.e.f. 01-04-2001.
The learned counsel further submitted that the stand taken by the
authorities in issuing the impugned order is not sustainable in view of the
fact that this court directed the authorities in the earlier round of litigation
to examine and verify as to whether the petitioner actually rendered her
service as claimed by her and if upon such verification, it is found that the
petitioner actually rendered her service, her entitled pay and allowances
should be calculated and paid to her within a stipulated period. It has also
been contended that in compliance with the directions of this court, the
authorities have initiated a detailed process for examination and
verification to find out as to whether the petitioner actually rendered her
service as claimed by her and that during the process of verification, it
has been found out that the petitioner actually rendered her service and
the Government utilized her service without paying her any salary and
allowances and a report has been submitted in this regard along with
supporting documents. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that
in view of such uncontroverted findings, the stand taken by the authorities
are not sustainable and hence, deserves to be interfered with by quashing
and setting aside the impugned order dated 30-06-2017.
[11] The learned counsel also argued that in case of other persons
similarly situated as the petitioner and who were serving on ad-hoc basis
in the Directorate of Education (S), this court had granted relief to them
by passing necessary orders dated 30-03-2015 in WP(C) No. 1016 of
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[8]
2014, order dated 31-10-2017 in Contempt Case (C) No. 187 of 2015,
judgment and order dated 20-01-2022 in WP(C) No. 560 of 2019 by
quashing similar orders impugned in the present writ petition and by
directing the authorities to release the entitled pay and allowances / back-
wages of those persons. It has also been submitted by the learned
counsel that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge have also
up-held by the Division Bench in the writ appeal filed by the State
Government and also not interfered with by the Apex Court of the land
and that the judgment and orders passed by this court have also been
complied with by the State Government by issuing necessary orders
extending the period of ad-hoc service of those ad-hoc employees and by
paying their due back-wages. The learned counsel submitted that the
issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
aforesaid judgment and orders and the petitioner is also entitled to get
similar benefits.
[12] In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No. 1 and 4,
it has been stated that the Additional Director of Education (S/V) wrote a
letter dated 14-10-2019 requesting the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II
to re-examine/ verify the verification report and Duty Certificate submitted
by their office and to submit a concrete / detailed report as to whether the
petitioner has actually been rendering her service w.e.f. 01-04-2001 to
29-12-2016 by examining all the relevant service records such as
attendance register, work allocation, duty certificate, etc. on or before
19-10-2019. In response to the said aforesaid letter, the Zonal Education
Officer, Zone-II wrote letters dated 19-10-2019 and 30-11-2019 to the
effect that enormous effort have been made to trace out the relevant files
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[9]
maintained in their office which indicate work allocation of the petitioner
but work allocation of the petitioner during the period between 01-04-2001
upto 01-12-2009 was not available on record of their office and that her
assignment of work was found allotted only in the year 2009 and 2011 to
assist the work of S. Ibomcha Singh, Accountant in the Account Section
of the said Zonal Education Officer office and that her performance of duty
attendance was mentioned as not satisfactory and poor as well as
irregular in the statement given by the said S. Ibomcha Singh. In the said
affidavit-in-opposition, it has also been stated that the attendance register
of the petitioner has already been examined by the on the spot enquiry
team of the Directorate of Education (S) in connection with the Contempt
Case (C) No. 38 of 2016 filed by the present petitioner and report along
with the relevant documents has already been submitted along with the
letter dated 02-08-2016 of the Director of Education (S) to the effect that
some irregularities are found in her attendance.
[13] I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and also carefully examined the materials
available on record. On careful examination of the record of the present
case, it is found that the period of ad-hoc service of the petitioner as Craft
Instructor (Pottery) was lastly extended upto 31-03-2021 by an order
dated 10-01-2007. It is also on record that many of the extension of the
period of ad-hoc service of the petitioner was by way of ex-post facto.
Even though there was no formal order of extension after 31-03-2001, it
is the claim of the petitioner that she continue to render her service as
Craft Instructor (Pottery) in the Office of the Zonal Education Officer,
Zone-II continuously without any break atleast till 29-12-2016 and that her
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[10]
service was utilized by the Government during the said period without any
pay and allowances.
[14] The writ petitioner already approached this court earlier by filing
WP(C) No. 997 of 2014 and the said writ petition was disposed of by order
dated 17-06-2015 directing the authorities to verify as to whether the
petitioner actually render her service as claimed by her and if, on such
verification, it is found that she actually rendered her service, the State
Government was directed to release her pay and allowances. Pursuant
thereto, the Director of Education (S) under his letter dated 14-09-2015
requested the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II to examine and verify as
to whether the petitioner had actually worked /rendered her service in
the Office of the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II for the period w.e.f.
01-04-2001 to 31-03-2011 and to submit a comprehensive report along
with relevant documents. In response to the said letter of the Director of
Education (S), the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II submitted a report
dated 01-10-2015 along with supporting documents to the effect that the
petitioner has been rendering her service in the Office of the Zonal
Education Officer, Zone-II without any break till the date of the said report.
[15] On careful examination of the record, this court also found that
the period of ad-hoc service of one A. Kiranmala Devi, who was serving
as Craft Instructor on ad-hoc service along with the present petitioner in
the same office of the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II to assist
S. Ibomcha Singh, Accountant has been extended for the period from
01-09-2010 to 30-03-2015 ex-post facto along with other 70 ad-hoc
employees of the Education (S) Department by issuing an order dated
26-02-2019.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[11]
It is also on record that as per instruction of the Government, the
Additional Director of Education (S/V), Government of Manipur submitted
proposals under letters dated 21-04-2011 and 07-06-2011 for extension
of the ad-hoc service of 10 (ten) non-teaching ad-hoc employees,
including the present petitioner after due verification of the genuineness
of their appointments and relevant documents. Acting on the said
proposals submitted by the Additional Director of Education (S/V), the
Government issued an order dated 08-11-2012 extending the ad-hoc
service of ten ad-hoc employees ex-post facto for the period indicated
against their names w.e.f. their last extension. In the said order, 9 (nine)
persons, whose names were included in the proposals submitted by the
Additional Director of Education (S/V), were included, however, quite
surprisingly, the petitioner alone was left out without assigning any
reason. The respondents have not given any reason in their counter
affidavit about the exclusion of the name of the petitioner at the time of
issuing the said order dated 08-11-2012 despite the proposals made by
the Additional Director of Education (S/V).
[16] The Principal Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur,
was of the view that an ad-hoc employee has no right to continue in
service beyond the term of ad-hoc appointment/ extension an that his/her
continuance in ad-hoc service without any proper extension of his/ her
ad-hoc service should be treated as un-authorized service. On this basis,
the Government was pleased to order that as the service of the petitioner
was not extended beyond 31-03-2001, she has not right to continue in
her service without authority and that there was no proper satisfactory
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[12]
report for attending office and accordingly, it was held that she was not
entitled to the pay and allowances w.e.f. 01-04-2001.
On a bear perusal of the impugned order as well as affidavit-in-
opposition filed by the respondents No. 1 and 4, it is very clear that the
authorities have never specifically deny the fact that the petitioner
continue to render her service as Craft Instructor (Pottery) in the Office
of the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II, Education (S) Department,
Government of Manipur even after the expiry of the extended period of
her ad-hoc service. The petitioner continue to render her service on the
legitimate expectation that the period of her ad-hoc service will be
extended by the Government ex-post facto as done in the earlier
occasions and the State Government also continue to utilize the service
rendered by the petitioner without paying her any pay and allowances.
The authorities of the State Government also neither deny nor reject the
fact finding and verification report submitted by the officials of the
Directorate of Education (S) along with supporting documents to the effect
that the petitioner rendered service even after expiry of the extended
period of her ad-hoc service. Therefore, this court is of the considered
view that the authorities cannot now make a self-serving statement that
even if the petitioner continue to render service, it was without approval
of the competent authority. The authorities cannot take advantage of their
own wrongs and seek to deny the rightful benefits due payable for service
actually rendered by the petitioner.
[17] This court cannot also ignore the fact that the authorities have
repeatedly over-looked or ignored the case of the petitioner with regard
to the proposals for extension of the period of her ad-hoc service and
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[13]
have denied the rightful and legitimate claim of the petitioner for extension
of the period of her ad-hoc service and payment of her back-wages for
the service actually rendered by her, while granting such benefits to other
persons similarly situated with the petitioner, despite the directions given
by this court in her favour in the earlier round of litigation as well as
verification report submitted by the officials of the Education(S)
Department in her favour. In my considered view, such actions of the
authorities are nothing but absolute discrimination between the petitioner
and other ad-hoc employees of the Education (S) Department who are
similarly situated with the petitioner and accordingly, such actions of the
authorities are ultra-vires of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14
and 16 of the Constitution and hence, not sustainable in the eye of law.
[18] On careful perusal of the order dated 30-03-2015 passed by this
court in WP(C) No. 1016 of 2015, order dated 31-10-2017 passed in
Contempt Case No. 187 of 2015 read with order dated 19-01-2018
passed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 1037 of 2018, order dated
12-12-2018 passed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 33264 of 2018,
judgment and order dated 20-01-2022 passed by this court in WP(C)
No. 560 of 2019 and order dated 01-06-2022 passed by this court in Writ
Appeal No. 60 of 2022, this court also agree with the submission
advanced by the leaned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in
the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment
and orders and since the directions given therein have been complied
with by the State Government by issuing necessary orders, the present
writ petition can be disposed of by granting similar relief to the present
petitioner.
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
[14]
[19] For the reasons and findings given hereinabove, this court is of
the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in
the present writ petition. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed
by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30-06-2017
issued by the Principal Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur
and by directing the authorities to issue necessary orders for extension
of ad-hoc service of the petitioner for the period from 01-04-2001 till
29-12-2016 and to release the pay and allowances due payable to the
petitioner. 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 cost.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Devananda
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019 Contd.../-
