[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Manipur High Court
Mr. N. Loli Mao vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The on 4 April, 2026
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
LAISHRA Digitally signed
by LAISHRAM
M DHAKESHORI
DEVI
DHAKESH Date: Item Nos. 9-10
ORI DEVI 2026.04.07
12:43:23 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
1. WP(C) No. 966 of 2018
Mr. N. Loli Mao, aged about 41 years old, S/o Nekhini a permanent
resident of Punnnamei Village, Senapati District, Manipur at present
serving as Assistant Lineman on Adhoc Basis with the posting under the
Senapati Division, Electricity Department, Manipur P.O. & P.S. Mao,
Senapati District, Manipur - 795106.
...Petitioner/s
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Commissioner/Principal Secretary (Power) Government of
Manipur, Imphal, Babupara, Secretariat P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Chief Engineer (Power) Government of Manipur
Keishampat, Imphal West, Khwai Bazar P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Manipur 795001, at present the Managing Director, MSPCL.
3. The Managing Director, Manipur State Power Distribution
Company Limited, Secured Office, Opposite DM
College/University, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur - 795001.
...Respondent/s
Mr. Laishram Sanatomba Singh, aged about 48 years old, S/o (L) L.
Tombi Singh a permanent resident of Kongpal, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur-795005 at present serving as Assistant
Lineman/Junior Technical Assistant on Adhoc Basis with the posting
under the Lamlong SAub-Division, IED-IV, Electricity
Department/MSPDCL, Manipur.
...Petitioner/s
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 1
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Commissioner/Principal Secretary (Power) Government of
Manipur, Imphal, Babupara, Secretariat P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Managing Director, Manipur State Power Distribution
Company Limited, Imphal, Manipur (MSPDCL) P.O & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Chief Engineer (Power) Government of Manipur at Present
Managing Director Manipur State Power Company Limited
(MSPCL), Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
Manipur 795001.
...Respondent/s
-B E F O R E-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioners :: Mr. S. Lokendro, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. Th. Vashum, Govt. Advocate
Dates of hearing :: 04-04-2026
Date of Order :: 04-04-2026
(JUDGMENT AND ORDER)
( O R A L)
Heard Mr. S. Lokendro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr. Th. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the
respondents.
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 2
[2] As the facts raised in the present two writ petitions and
issues to be decided are one and same, the present two writ petitions
are disposed of by this common order.
[3] WP(C)No. 966 of 2018 has been filed with a prayer for
quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 04-03-2016
coupled with a prayer for directing the respondents to consider the case
of the petitioner for regularization of his ad-hoc service as Assistant
Lineman in the Electricity Department, Government of Manipur.
[4] WP(C)No. 969 of 2018 has been filed with a prayer for
directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization of his ad-hoc service as Assistant Lineman in the Electricity
Department in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 03-10-2013.
For easy reference and convenience, the petitioner in
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 will be referred as Petitioner No. 1 and the
petitioner in WP(C)No. 969 of 2018 will be referred to as Petitioner
No. 2.
[5] The facts of the cases in a nutshell are that by an Office
Order No. 456 dated 18-12-1998 issued by the Office of the Chief
Engineer (Power), Electricity Department, the Petitioner No. 1 was
appointed as Assistant Lineman on Ad-hoc basis initially for a period of
6(six) months. Likewise, by an officer order No. 452 dated 18-12-1998
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 3
issued by the Office of the Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity
Department, the Petitioner No. 2 was also appointed as Assistant
Lineman on Ad-hoc basis initially for a period of 6(six) months. The
period of Ad-hoc services of the said petitioners were extended from
time to time and they continued to render service as Assistant Lineman
on ad-hoc basis continuously and without any interruption.
[6] By an Officer Order No. 157 dated 18-06-2009 issued by
the Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity Department, the ad-hoc services
of both the petitioners were extended w.e.f. 19-06-2000 till 23-09-2005
and thereafter, no order extending the period of ad-hoc service of the
petitioners had been issued by the authorities. The undisputed fact is
that after 23-09-2005, the period of ad-hoc services were not extended
by the authorities by issuing any official orders. However, it is the case
of the petitioners that they continued to render service as Assistant
Lineman on ad-hoc basis even after 23-09-2005.
[7] While the petitioners were continuing to render service as
Assistant Lineman on ad-hoc basis without any official order extending
the period of their ad-hoc services, the Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur,
issued an Office Memorandum dated 03-10-2013. The said Office
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 4
Memorandum contained the policy of the Government of regularization
of ad-hoc services in respect of 288 direct recruit ad-hoc employees of
various government departments/offices.
[8] In the said Office Memorandum, the following conditions
are laid down for regularising the services of ad-hoc employees :-
"i) Clear vacant posts in the grade or equivalent must be available
for regularization;
"ii) Persons must be serving on ad-hoc basis continuously from
23-03-2006 onwards on the strength of specific Court Orders or
on specific orders of the government with the approval of the
State Cabinet;
"iii) Duty Certificate certifying that the concerned ad-hoc employee
is serving continuously till date on the ground mentioned above
and duly counter signed by Administrative Secretaries is to be
placed before the Special Departmental Promotion Committee;
"iv) In all cases where the ad-hoc employee has remained in service
on the strength of court orders, the relevant court orders may
be furnished before the Special Departmental Promotion
Committee;
"v) Regularization shall be with prospective effect and no
retrospective effect will be allowed."
The said policy for regularising ad-hoc services was only a
one time measure.
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 5
[9] Pursuant to the said Office Memorandum and in response
to a letter dated 18-10-2013 from the Commissioner (Power),
Government of Manipur, the Chief Engineer (Power), Government of
Manipur, wrote a letter dated 25-11-2013 furnishing a proposal for
regularization of the then existing 12 numbers of ad-hoc employees of
the Electricity Department. In the said list of the then existing ad-hoc
employees of the Electricity Department, Manipur, submitted by the
Chief Engineer (Power), Government of Manipur, the names of the
petitioners were included.
[10] It is on record that a Special DPC meeting was held on
26-12-2013 in accordance with the aforesaid Office Memorandum
dated 03-10-2013 and considered the cases for regularization of the ad
-hoc services serving in the Electricity Department. The said Special
DPC rejected the cases of the petitioners for non fulfilment of two
conditions/criteria laid down at Sl. No. (ii) and (iv) of the said Office
Memorandum dated 03-10-2013. The said condition nos. (ii) and (iv)
are reproduced hereunder for easy reference :
" ii) Persons must be serving on ad-hoc basis continuously from
23-03-2006 onwards on the strength of specific Court Orders
or on specific orders of the government with the approval of
the State Cabinet;
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 6
&
" iv) In all cases where the adhoc employee has remained in service
on the strength of court orders, the relevant court orders may
be furnished before the Special Departmental Promotion
Committee;"
[11] The petitioner No. 1 approached this Court earlier by filing
a writ petition registered as WP(C) No. 386 of 2014 with a prayer for
directing the respondents to consider his case for regularization of his
ad-hoc service as provided under the said Officer Memorandum. The
said writ petition was disposed of on 01-09-2014 by directing the State
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner No. 1 for
regularization of his ad-hoc service against the post of Assistant
Lineman in terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 03-10-
2013 and to pass necessary order within a period of 1(one) month from
the date of communication of the said order.
[12] In compliance with the aforesaid direction given by this
Court, the case of the petitioner No. 1 was considered by the authorities
and his claim for regularization of his ad-hoc service was rejected by
issuing an order dated 04-03-2016 on the ground, inter alia, that the
special DPC considered the cases of both the petitioners in its meeting
held on 26-12-2013 and rejected their cases for non fulfilment of the
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 7
aforesaid two conditions/criteria laid down at Sl. No. (ii) and (iv) of the
said Office Memorandum dated 03-10-2013. The ground for rejection
is that the petitioner No. 1 was neither serving on ad-hoc basis on the
strength of specific Court orders nor on the specific orders of the
government with the approval of the State Cabinet.
[13] It may be noted here that the petitioner No. 1 assailed the
order dated 04-03-2016 issued by the Secretariat Power Department
rejecting the claim for regularization of his ad-hoc service as Assistant
Lineman and also prayed for issuing a direction to the respondents to
regularize his ad-hoc service. However, the petitioner No. 2 neither
challenge the order dated 04-03-2016 nor the proceeding of the Special
DPC meeting held on 26-12-2013, which rejected his claim for
regularization of his ad-hoc service.
[14] Mr. S. Lokendro, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that in the Office Order No. 157 dated 18-06-2009
issued by the Chief Engineer (Power), extending the period of ad-hoc
services of both the petitioners w.e.f. 19-06-2000 to 23-09-2005, it is
glaringly revealed that they were both serving on ad-hoc basis on the
date when the said last extension order was issued.
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 8
[15] The learned counsel further submitted that in the letter
dated 25-11-2013 from the office of the Chief Engineer (Power),
furnishing the proposal for regularization of 12 existing ad-hoc
employees of the Electricity Department, it was clearly stated that both
the petitioners were still serving as Assistant Lineman on ad-hoc basis.
The learned counsel also submitted that in view of such facts, it can be
reasonably conclude that both the petitioners were rendering service
as Assistant Lineman in the Electricity Department on ad-hoc basis on
the date when Office Memorandum dated 03-10-2013 was issued.
Therefore, both the petitioners are entitled to have their ad-hoc
services regularize as provided under the said Officer Memorandum
dated 03-10-2013.
[16] The learned counsel submitted that the One Time Policy of
the State Government for regularization of 288 direct recruit ad-hoc
employees as provided in the said Office Memorandum were specifically
for those 288 ad-hoc employees, which includes both the petitioners,
and as such the rejection of their claim for regularization of their ad-
hoc service by the authorities is arbitrary and unreasonable and as
such, interference from this Court is called for by directing the
respondents to regularize the ad-hoc service of the petitioners.
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 9
[17] Mr. Th. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the respondents
submitted that the One Time Measure of the government for
regularization of direct recruit ad-hoc employees were subject to certain
conditions. Some of the conditions are that
ii) the Persons must be serving on ad-hoc basis continuously
from 23-03-2006 onwards on the strength of specific Court
Orders or on the specific orders of the government with the
approval of the State Cabinet;
iv) In all cases where the ad-hoc employee has remained in
service on the strength of court orders, the relevant court
orders may be furnished before the Special Departmental
Promotion Committee.
[18] It has been submitted by the learned GA that even though
the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Lineman on ad-hoc basis
w.e.f. 18-12-1998, the period of their ad-hoc service were extended
only up to 23-09-2005 vide Office Order No. 157 dated 18-06-2009
issued by the Chief Engineer (Power). Thereafter, the period of ad-hoc
service to the petitioner was neither extended by the authorities by
issuing any official order nor is there is any specific order from the Court
allowing the petitioner to continue to serve on ad-hoc basis after 23-
09-2005.
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 10
[19] According to the learned GA, as the petitioners were not
serving on ad-hoc basis on the date the said Office Memorandum was
issued, the authorities rejected the claims of the petitioners for
regularization of their ad-hoc service as they do not fulfill the conditions
laid down in the said Office Memorandum.
[20] The learned GA submitted that as the petitioners do not
fulfill the required conditions as specified in the said Office
Memorandum, the authorities rejected their claims for regularization of
their ad-hoc service and as such, there is no ground for interfering with
the impugned order dated 04-03-2006 or with the decision taken by
the authorities rejecting the claim for regularisaion. The learned GA,
accordingly prays for dismissing this writ petition as being devoid of
merit.
[21] I have heard at length the rival submissions advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also carefully
considered all the materials available on record. In the present case,
the said Office Memorandum dated 03-10-2013 provides for
regularization of the direct recruit ad-hoc employees as one time
measure on fulfillment of certain specific conditions. One of the
conditions is that the candidate must be serving on ad-hoc basis
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 11
continuously from 23-03-2006 onwards till the issuance of the said
Office Memorandum either on the strength of specific Court Orders or
on the basis of orders of the government with the approval of the State
Cabinet.
[22] Both the writ petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc basis
w.e.f. 18-12-1998 and the period of their ad-hoc services were lastly
extended upto 23-09-2005 only by issuing an Office Order No. 157
dated 18-06-2009. Thereafter, the period of ad-hoc services of the
petitioners were not extended by the authorities and there was also no
order passed by the Court allowing the petitioners to continue to serve
on ad-hoc basis. Even though it has been claimed by the petitioners
that they continued to render services as Assistant Lineman on ad-hoc
basis in the Electricity Department on the date when the said Office
Memorandum dated 03-10-2013 was issued, the facts still remains that
such continuation was not on the strength or any specific Court Orders
or on any specific orders of the government. The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners also fairly submitted that there is no
specific order either from the Court or from the government extending
the period of ad-hoc services of the petitioners after 23-09-2005.
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 12
[23] In the present case, as the authorities have rejected the
claims of the petitioners for regularization of their ad-hoc service on
the ground that they do not fulfill the conditions laid down in the said
Office Memorandum, i.e., they don't continue to render service as
Assistant Lineman on ad-hoc basis after 23-09-2005 on the strength of
any specific Court Orders or on specific orders of the government, this
Court do not find any grounds for interfering with such decision of the
Government. The One Time Policy of the Government for regularization
of ad-hoc services was subject to fulfilment of certain conditions as
specified in the said Office Memorandum and when the authorities
rejected the claims of the petitioners on the ground that they do not
fulfil some of the conditions as specified in the said Office
Memorandum, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decisions
of the authorities.
[24] In the result, this Court do not find any merit in the present
petition, accordingly, the present writ petitions are hereby dismissed,
however, without any costs.
JUDGE
Dhakeshori
WP(C) No. 966 of 2018 Page 13
