Manipur High Court

Shri Khundrakpam Mohon Singh vs The State Of Manipur on 11 January, 2024

Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

[1]
SHOUGR Digitally
by
signed

AKPAM SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
DEVANAN SINGH
DA SINGH Date: 2024.01.11
16:14:29 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
W.P. (C) No. 719 of 2020

Shri Khundrakpam Mohon Singh, aged about 53 years,
S/o (L) Naran Singh, a resident of Pangantabi Village, P.O.
Kakching, P.S. Wangoo, Kakching District, Manipur-795103.
... Petitioner
-Versus-

1. The State of Manipur, represent by the Commissioner, Arts &
Culture, Government of Manipur, New Secretariat Building,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
2. The Commissioner (D/P), Government of Manipur, New
Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur-795001.
3. The Director, Arts & Culture, Government of Manipur, near
BOAT, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
... Respondents

B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioner :: Shri N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate &
Mrs. N. Savitri, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mrs. L. Monomala, GA
Date of Hearing :: 04-12-2023
Date of Judgment & Order :: 11-01-2024

JUDGMENT & ORDER

[1] The present writ petition had been filed with the prayer for

quashing the impugned order dated 01-12-2020 issued by the

Commissioner (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur, rejecting the

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-
[2]

representation of the petitioner for appointing him as Junior Lecturer (Vocal)

in Government Music College and also for issuing a writ of Mandamus

directing the respondents to appoint/ absorb the petitioner as Junior

Lecturer (Vocal) in the Government Music College now renamed as Shree

Shree Balmukunda Dev Government Music College, Imphal.

[2] The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner

was appointed as Junior Lecturer (Vocal) on contract basis initially for a

period of six months in the Government Music College, Imphal. Thereafter,

the period of his contract service was extended from time to time by the

Government and by the last extension order dated 18-09-1998, the period

of contract appointment of the petitioner was extended upto 31-03-1999.

The Government Music College was subsequently renamed as Shree

Shree Bal Mukunda Dev Government Music College, Imphal and the

said College is under the control of the Secretariat, Arts and Culture,

Government of Manipur.

[3] The All Manipur Government Arts & Culture Department Casual/

Contract Employees and Workers Union and two other persons filed a writ

petition being Civil Rule No.148 of 1998 in the Gauhati High Court, Imphal

Bench, with the prayer for issuing a direction to the authorities to regularize

their Contract/ Casual service either by preparing a scheme on rational

basis or after creation of post. The said writ petition was allowed by the

Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, vide its judgment and order dated

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-
[3]

07-12-1998 passed in Civil Rule No. 148 of 1998 and the operative portion

of the said judgment and order are as under:-

"7. Be that as it may, considering the existing facts and
circumstances of this case as well as applying the established
principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter, I direct
the respondents to prepare a scheme on rational basis taking into
account of the length of services of these casual/ contract/ work
charged employees rendering their service under the
respondents with the vacancy position of the related post/ posts
and also to make proper scrutiny about their eligibility for
absorption to their respective posts and the same shall be done
within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this
judgment and order. It is made clear that the benefit of the past
services of those employees/ workers shall be taken into account
for the purpose of their retirement benefits and other pensionary
benefits and for the purpose of absorption also. It is also further
made clear that those employees/ workers of the Department
concerned who are equally situated with those employees/
workers involved in the present case whose case shall also be
considered and they shall be treated equally by the respondents.
Interim order passed by this court on 10-3-98 is merged with this
judgment and order."

The aforesaid judgement and order was challenged by the

Government and the matter reached upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the

judgment and order passed by the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench.

[4] The present petitioner also filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.

267 of 1999 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, with the prayer

for directing the authorities to absorb his contact service in the regular

establishment in the light of the aforesaid judgment and order dated

07-12-1998 passed by the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in Civil Rule

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-
[4]

No. 148 of 1998. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Gauhati High

Court, Imphal Bench, by passing an order dated 30-03-1999 to the effect

that as the matter was covered by its earlier judgment and order dated

07-12-1998 passed in CR No. 148 of 1998, the said writ petition also stand

disposed of with the direction as given in para. 7 of the earlier judgment and

order dated 07-12-1998 passed in CR No. 148 of 1998. In the said order, it

was also made clear that the petitioner shall not be thrown out from service

in the meantime.

[5] When the contract service of the petitioner was not extended after

31-03-1999 despite the repeated requests and proposals made by the

Principal of Government Music College, Imphal and the Director, Arts and

Culture, Manipur for extension of the contract service of the petitioner, the

petitioner filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 960 of 1999 in the

Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, with the prayer for issuing a direction to

the authorities to issue necessary orders for extension of his contract

service. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Gauhati High Court,

Imphal Bench, by an order dated 28-07-1999 wherein the authorities were

directed to issue necessary orders for extension of the service of the

petitioner at the earliest.

The aforesaid orders dated 30-03-1999 passed in WP(C) No. 267

of 1999 and order dated 28-07-1999 passed in WP(C) No. 960 of 1999,

both filed by the petitioner, were challenged by the Government by filing

WA No. 68 of 1999 and Review Petn. No. 42 of 1999 respectively, however,

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-
[5]

both the said writ appeal as well as the review petition were dismissed by

the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench by an order dated 10-06-2004

passed in WA No. 68 of 1999 and order dated 12-11-2009 passed in Rev.

Petn. No. 42 of 1999. Thereafter, the matter has attained its finality.

[6] In compliance with the direction given by the Gauhati High Court

in its judgement and order dated 07-12-1998 passed in CR No. 148 of 1998

and the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State Government

framed a scheme called the Scheme for the absorption of contract/

casual employees on regular basis in the Arts & Culture Department,

Manipur in the year 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the "Scheme", for

short). The purpose of the scheme as laid down in para. 2 of the said

scheme is as under:-

"2. Purpose of the Scheme:-
(1) The Scheme has been framed as per judgment and ORDER
(ORAL) passed by the Guwahati High Court, Imphal Bench

on 07-12-98 in C.R. No. 148 of 1998, operative part of which is reproduced below:-

"Be that as it may, considering the existing facts and circumstances of this case as well as applying the established principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter, I direct the respondents to prepare a scheme on rational basis taking into account of the length of services of these casual/ contract/ Work charged employees rendering their services under the respondent with the vacancy position of the related posts and also to make proper scrutiny about their eligibility for absorption to their respective posts and the same shall be done within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. It is made clear that the benefit of the past services of those employees/ workers shall be taken into account for the purpose of their retirement benefits and other pensionary benefits and for the purpose of

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-

absorption also. It is also further made clear that those employees/ workers of the Department concerned who are equally situated with those employees/ workers involved in the present case whose cases shall also be considered and they shall be treated equally by the respondents."

The application of the scheme as laid down in para. 4 of the

scheme is as under:-

"4. Application:

The new scheme shall be applicable to the petitioner in the said C.R. and also to those Casual/ Contract employees who are equally situated and are at present in the various offices of the Art & Culture Department, Govt. of Manipur which consists of the following offices:-

(a) Office of the Directorate of Art & Culture, Manipur.

(b) Office of the State Archaeology, Manipur.

(c) Office of the Manipur State Archives, Manipur.

(d) Office of the Central Library (inclouding District Libraries), Manipur.

(e) Office of the Manipur State Museum, Imphal.

(f) Office of the Shri Balmukunda Dev Music College (Govt. Music College).

(g) Office of the Govt. Dance College.

(h) Office of the I.N.A. Martyrs' Memorial Museum, Moirang."

[7] In paras. 5 and 7 of the scheme, a total of 55 casual/ contract

employees in various offices under the Arts & Culture Department are

shown and among those 55 Casual/ Contract employees, the name of

the petitioner is also included.

In para. 7 of the said scheme, it is, inter alia, laid down as under:-

"7. Classification on the basis of length of services:-

The above 55 (fifty-five) Casual/ Contract Employees of the Art & Culture Department, Manipur (for whom the scheme is prepared

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-

for absorption in the sanctioned posts regularly) have been classified as below according to their length of services on Casual Contract basis:-"

In para. 9 of the scheme, the number of available vacancies and

number of posts to be created, altogether numbering 55 post including two

posts of Junior Lecturer (Vocal), are earmarked/ shown for the purpose of

achieving the objective of the scheme.

[8] After framing of the said scheme, the Secretary (Arts & Culture),

Government of Manipur issued an order dated 09-02-2015 thereby

regularizing the casual/ contract service of 43 staffs working in various units

of the Directorate of Arts & Culture with effect from the date shown against

their name and subject to the condition that actual payment of salary shall

take place with effect from 01-04-2014. Among the said 43 regularized

staff, the name of the petitioner is not included. Feeling aggrieved, the

petitioner submitted a representation dated 28-08-2019 to the

Commissioner, Arts & Culture, Government of Manipur requesting for

regularizing his contractual service as Junior Lecturer (Vocal) in the

Government Music College, Imphal. During the process of considering the

representation submitted by the petitioner, the Principal, Shree Shree Bal

Mukunda Dev Government Music College Imphal wrote a letter dated

07-11-2019 to the Director, Arts & Culture, submitting the statement of

occupied and vacant post in the said College as on 01-03-2019. In the said

statement, two posts of Junior Lecturer (Vocal) are shown to be vacant.

Subsequently, the Director, Arts & Culture, Manipur wrote a letter dated

14-11-2019 to the Commissioner (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-

stating, inter alia, that two vacant posts of Junior Lecturer (Vocal) are

available in the said Music College and that the petitioner was qualified for

the post of Junior Lecturer (Vocal) as per the old R.R. of 1984 and not

eligible as per the new R.R. of 1998 and also requesting for considering the

case of the petitioner for appropriate decision to avoid any further litigation.

[9] Instead of considering the case of the petitioner in terms of

the direction given by the Gauhati High Court and in terms of the

scheme framed by the Government, the Commissioner (Arts & Culture),

Government of Manipur, issued the impugned order dated 01-12-2020

thereby rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner as being

devoid of merit. The ground for rejecting the representation of the petitioner

as given in the said impugned order are as under:-

"8. Whereas, it is observed that Kh. Mohon's contractual service was extended upto 21.03.1999 and framing of Scheme of regularization of casual/ contract employees was in 2004."

"9. As it is clear that framing of the Scheme of regularization of casual/ contract employees was only for those who were in service till 2004, the representation dated 28.08.2019 filed by Shri Khundrakpam Mohon Singh is considered and stands rejected being devoid of merit."

Having been aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court

by filing the present writ petition for redressing his grievances.

[10] The stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit-in-

opposition is that the term of contract appointment of the petitioner was

extended upto 31-03-1999 and after completion of the said period, the

period of contract service of the petitioner was not extended by the

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-

Government and his service was also not utilised. It has also been

submitted that the petitioner was eligible for appointment to the post of

Junior Lecturer (Vocal) as per the old R.R. of 1984 but he is not eligible

for the same post as per the new R.R. of 1998 and as such, his case

was not considered due to his ineligibility.

[11] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that in the writ appeal being WA No. 68 of 1999 filed

by the State Government against the order dated 30-03-1999 passed in

WP(C) No. 267 of 1999, an interim stay order was passed and in view of

the said interim stay order, the period of contract service of the petitioner

was not extended by the Government. However, the said writ appeal was

subsequently closed by an order dated 10-06-2004 and the earlier

interim stay order was vacated. The learned senior counsel further

submitted that the review petition filed by the State Government against

the order dated 28-07-1999 passed in WP(C) No. 960 of 1999 was also

dismissed by an order dated 12-11-2009. The learned senior counsel

strenuously submitted that since the writ appeal as well as the review

petition have been dismissed by the Gauhati High Court and any interim

stay order passed therein having been vacated, the direction given by

the Gauhati High Court not to throw out the petitioner from service as

well as the direction for issuing necessary orders for extension of the

service of the petitioner has attained finality and the State Government

is duty bound to implement the same. It has also been submitted that the

respondents cannot took the plea that the contract service of the

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-

petitioner was not extended and the respondents refusal to consider the

case of the petitioner for regularization of his service in terms of the

direction given by the High Court and the scheme framed by the

Government only on this ground is very arbitrary and unreasonable and

is in direct contravention of the direction given by the High Court and the

provisions of the scheme framed by the State Government.

[12] The learned senior counsel further submitted that one Shri L.

Nobin Singh, who was working as Junior Lecturer in Music College on

contract basis and who is similarly situated with the petitioner, in that the

said Shri L. Nobin Singh is eligible under the old R.R. of 1984 and not

eligible under the new R.R. of 1998, had been given regular appointment

by the order dated 09-02-2015 issued by the Secretary (Arts & Culture),

Government of Manipur. In the said order, the name of Shri L. Nobin Singh

appears at Sl. No. 23. The learned senior counsel strenuously submitted

that the petitioner has not been treated equally with his equal and the

respondents refusal to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization

of his service on the ground that he is not eligible under the new R.R. is

very much discriminatory and in violation of the equality clause enshrined

under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned senior counsel

also submitted that the State Government cannot blow hot and cold at the

same time.

[13] I have heard the submissions of Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior

counsel assisted by Mrs. N. Savitri, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Mrs. L. Monomala, learned GA appearing for the

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-

respondents at length and also carefully examined all the materials

available on record.

On Careful examination of the impugned order dated 01-12-2020

issued by the Commissioner (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur,

rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization of his contractual

service as Junior Lecturer (Vocal) in the aforesaid Music College, it is found

that the ground given for such rejection is that the contractual service of

the petitioner was extended upto 31-03-1999 and framing of the scheme of

regularization of casual/ contract employees was in 2004 and was only

for those who were in service till 2004. Another reason given by the

respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition for not considering the case of

the petitioner for regularization of his contractual service in terms of the

direction given by the Gauhati High Court and the scheme framed by the

Government is that even though the petitioner was eligible at the time of

his initial appointment as Junior Lecturer (Vocal) under the relevant R.R. of

1984, he become ineligible for the same post under the new R.R. of 1998.

[14] On careful examination of the contents of the scheme, which have

been extensively quoted hereinabove, this court is of the considered view

that the said scheme had been framed/ prepared by the Government as a

State policy for absorbing the services of 55 casual/ contract employees

named therein, including the present petitioner, of the Arts & Culture

Department, Manipur. The scheme nowhere postulates that the scheme is

applicable only to those who were still in service at the time of framing of

the said scheme. On the other hand, it is clearly laid down in paras. 2 and

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-

7 of the said scheme that the purpose of the scheme is for absorption/

regularization of the service of 55 casual/ contract employees of the Arts &

Culture Department, Manipur and the names and particulars of those 55

casual/ contract employees, including the present petitioner, were also

shown. In such view of the matter, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner

for regularization of his contractual service as Junior Lecturer (Vocal) on

the ground that the scheme is applicable only to those casual/ contract

employees who were still in service at the time of framing of the said

scheme is unsustainable and deserves to be quash and set aside.

[15 ] This court also found force in the submission advanced by the

learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that as the orders of the

Gauhati High Court dated 30-03-1999 passed in WP(C) No. 267 of 1999

and the order dated 28-07-1999 passed in WP(C) No. 960 of 1999 directing

the respondents not to throw out the petitioner from service till the framing

of the scheme and consideration of his case under the said scheme and

the direction for issuing necessary order for extension of service of the

petitioner has attained finality, the respondents are duty bound to

implement the same and the respondents cannot refuse to consider the

case of the petitioner for regularization of his contractual service as Junior

Lecturer (Vocal) in the said College on the ground that his contract service

was not extended. This court is of the considered view that the respondents

cannot act contrary to the clear direction given by the High Court in its

orders dated 30-03-1999 passed in WP(C) No. 267 of 1999 and order dated

28-07-1999 passed in WP(C) No. 960 of 1999 and they cannot nullify such

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-

clear cut direction of the High Court only on the plea that the contractual

service of the petitioner was not extended specially when they have failed

to issue necessary extension orders in compliance with the direction given

by the High Court.

[16] Even though under the terms and conditions as laid down in para.

8 of the scheme, it is mentioned that absorption of the casual/ contract

employees will be made in phases by giving priority to fulfilment of the

requisite qualifications etc. as per the relevant/ approved R.R. of the

respective posts, it is nowhere mentioned that such absorption shall be

subject to fulfilment of the latest R.R. While giving directions by the Gauhati

High Court for preparation of a scheme for absorption/ regularization of

the casual/ contract employees, it was made clear by the High Court that

the benefit of the past services of those employees/ workers shall be taken

into account for the purpose of their retirement benefits and other

pensionary benefits and for the purpose of absorption also. Taking into

consideration such clear cut directions given by the Gauhati High Court as

well as keeping in view that there is not specific condition under the Scheme

that the absorption/ regularization of the casual/ contract service shall be

subject to the fulfilment of the latest R.R., this court is of the considered

view that the relevant or approved R.R. as mentioned in the terms and

conditions of the scheme will construe to mean the Recruitment Rules of

the respective posts existing and applicable at the time of initial

appointment of the casual/ contract employees. To construe otherwise, in

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-

my considered view, will defeat the very purpose of framing the said

scheme and implementation of the directions given by the High Court.

As the petitioner was qualified and eligible as per the R.R. of the

post of Junior Lecturer (Vocal) existing and applicable at the time of his

initial appointment, the respondents can consider the case of the petitioner

for his absorption as per the said R.R. of 1984 and in terms of the

provisions of the scheme. Moreover, as the respondents have not denied

the statement made by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit that the

contract service of Shri L. Nobin Singh, Junior Lecturer, who is similarly

situated with the petitioner, have been regularized by the order dated

09-02-2015 under the scheme framed by the Government, this court is of

the considered view that the respondents cannot apply a different yardstick

in the case of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit

as are given by the Government to the said Shri L. Nobin Singh.

[17] In view of the findings and reasons given hereinabove, this court

is inclined to disposed of the present writ petition with the following

directions:

(a) The impugned order dated 01-12-2020 issued by the

Commissioner (Arts & Culture), Government of Manipur rejecting

the claim of the petitioner for his absorption/ regularization as

Junior Lecturer (Vocal) is hereby quashed and set aside;

(b) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the

petitioner for regularization/ absorption of his contractual service

WP(C) No. 719 of 2020 Contd.../-

as Junior Lecturer (Vocal) in the Shree Shree Bal Mukunda Dev

Government Music College, Imphal in terms of the scheme

framed by the Government and strictly in terms of the directions

given by the Gauhati High Court in its order dated 30-03-1999

passed in WP(C) No. 267 of 1999 and order dated 28-07-1999

passed in WP(C) No. 960 of 1999 and issue necessary orders;

and

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid directions, the present wit petition is disposed

of. Parties are to bear their own costs.





                                                               JUDGE



FR / NFR



Devananda




 WP(C) No. 719 of 2020                                                 Contd.../-