Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 443 (GAU)

Thingujam Homen Singh v. State of Manipur

2008-06-16

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2008
JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. I. Lalitkumar Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Th. Rommel Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Jallaluddin, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order of the Director of Sericulture, Government of Manipur dated 31st March, 2001 terminating the services of the petitioner. A short factual panorama of the petitioner's case is that pursuant to an advertisement for appointment to 3 (three) Grade IV posts in the Directorate of Sericulture, the Director of Sericulture, Government of Manipur issued notice dated 24th February, 1992 that the DPC for filling up the posts of Grade-IV will be held from 26th to 28th February, 1992. The petitioner and others appeared before the said DPC for appointment to the said 3(three) Grade-IV posts in the Directorate of Sericulture, Government of Manipur on the dates notified in the said notice dated 24.2.1992. 3. As per materials on record, it appears that three persons including the present petitioner, had been recommended for appointment to the said 3 post of Grade-IV by the duly constituted DPC. As per the merit list of the recommended candidates, the name of the petitioner appeared at SI. No. 2 whereas the name of Shri E. Chaoba Singh appeared at SI. No. 1 and that of Shri M. Manglemba Singh appeared at SI. No. 3. After the petitioner and the said two others were duly recommended for appointment to the said 3(three) Grade IV posts in the Directorate of Sericulture, Government of Manipur, the Director of Sericulture furnished offer letters dated 04.03.1992 to the petitioner and the said two recommended candidates. 4. A copy of the offer letter dated 04.03.1992 is available at Annexure-A/2 to the present writ petition. One of the conditions in the said offer letter dated 04.03.1992 is 3(iii), which reads as follows: (iii) The appointment may be terminated at any time by one month notice given by either side, viz. the appointees or appointing authority without assigning any reasons. The appointing authority however, reserves the right of terminating the service of the appointee forthwith of before the expiration of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him or a sum equivalent to the pay and allowance for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof. 5. the appointees or appointing authority without assigning any reasons. The appointing authority however, reserves the right of terminating the service of the appointee forthwith of before the expiration of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him or a sum equivalent to the pay and allowance for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof. 5. The said two persons, i.e. Shri E. Chaoba Singh and Shri M. Manglemba Singh, whose names appeared at SI. No. 1 and SI. No. 3 respectively in the select list, had approached this Court by filing a joint writ petition i.e. Civil Rule No. 204 of 1997 for a direction to the present State respondents to appoint them as Grade-IV employees as per the offer letters furnished by the Director of Sericulture. It is the case of the present petitioner and the said two persons that they had duly accepted the offer letters of the Director of Sericulture dated 04.03.1992. 6. The said writ petition i.e. Civil Rule No. 204 of 1997, was disposed of by this Court by passing a final judgment and order dated 13.7.1999 wherein and whereunder the State respondents had been directed that the writ petitioners should be given appointment to the posts for which offer letters of appointment were issued. 7. In compliance of the said final judgment and order of this Court dated 13.7.1999 passed in C.R. No. 204 of 1997, the Director of Sericulture, Government of Manipur issued an order being No. Seri-III-Est-23/97, Imphal dated 11th November, 1999 for. appointing the present petitioner and said two recommended candidates namely, Shri E. Chaoba Singh and Shri M. Manglemba Singh as peon-cum-chowkidar temporarily. In the said order dated 11.11.1999, the name of the petitioner appeared at SI. No. 2. 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that surprisingly, the Director of Sericulture, Government of Manipur issued the impugned order being No. SERI-III-Est-14/2000, Imphal the 31st March, 2001 for terminating the services of the present petitioner w.e.f. 31.3.2001. Hence, the present writ petition. 9. No. 2. 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that surprisingly, the Director of Sericulture, Government of Manipur issued the impugned order being No. SERI-III-Est-14/2000, Imphal the 31st March, 2001 for terminating the services of the present petitioner w.e.f. 31.3.2001. Hence, the present writ petition. 9. In the present writ petition, the said impugned termination order dated 31.3.2001 is assailed on the main, inter alia, grounds that: (i) The said termination order dated 31.3.2001 was issued in clear violation of the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer letter dated 4.3.1992 wherein it had been mentioned that the appointment can be terminated at any time by month notice given by either side, viz. the appointees or appointing authority without assigning any reason and also that the appointing authority reserves the right of terminating the service of the appointee forthwith or even before the expiration of the stipulated period of one month notice by making payment to him or a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of one month notice or the unexpired period thereof; (ii) The impugned termination order dated 31.3.2001 was issued by the respondents without given any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; (iii) The petitioner had been arbitrarily picked-up for the purpose of terminating his services inasmuch as the services of Shri M. Manglemba Singh, whose name appeared at SI. No. 3 below the petitioner in the merit list of the selected candidate, had been retained; and (iv) The benefits of the order of this Court dated 13.7.1999 passed in Civil Rule No. 204 of 1997 shall also be extended to the petitioner in the present case. 10. Mr. I. Lalitkumar learned senior counsel, in order to substantiate the ground No. IV stated above, has referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. M. Saleena v. State of Kerala and Anr. 1979 (2) SCR 974 and K.C. Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 3588 (Constitution Bench). He further contends that the ratio laid down in the said two cases are that the benefit to the relief granted by the court shall also be extended to those affected persons, which do not move the court. In the present case, Mr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 3588 (Constitution Bench). He further contends that the ratio laid down in the said two cases are that the benefit to the relief granted by the court shall also be extended to those affected persons, which do not move the court. In the present case, Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel further contends that since the petitioner is undisputedly above the said Shri M. Manglemba Singh in the merit list, the services of the petitioner should have been retained in case one Grade-IV is to be terminated because of downsizing inasmuch as the benefits of the said order of this Court dated 13.7.1999 shall also be extended to the petitioner. 11. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner had been terminated from services only because of the downsizing and the services of Shri E. Chaoba Singh, whose name appeared at SI. No. 1 and Shri M. Manglemba Singh, whose name appeared at SI. No. 3 in the merit list are retained because of the order of this Court dated 13.7.1999 passed in C.R. No. 204 of 1997. If that be so, this Court is also of the considered view that the benefits of the order of this Court dated 13.7.1999 passed in C.R. No. 204 of 1997 shall also be extended to the petitioner. Therefore, the fourth ground for assailing the termination holds good in the eye of law. 12. Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel, in order to substantiate the first ground mentioned above for assailing the impugned termination order dated 31.3.2001, contends that the terms and conditions mentioned in the said offer letter dated 04.3.1992 basing on which the petitioner had been appointed as Grade-TV are binding to both the parties i.e. the employer and the employee. In order to substantiate this proposition of law, Mr. I. Lalitkumar had referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in-- (a) Satish Chandra Anand v. Unioin of India 1953 (4) SCR 655 ; (b) Senior Superintendent, R.M.S, Cochin and Anr. v. K.V. Gopinath 1972 (1) LLJ 486 SC ; and (c) Raj Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 536 . 13. I. Lalitkumar had referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in-- (a) Satish Chandra Anand v. Unioin of India 1953 (4) SCR 655 ; (b) Senior Superintendent, R.M.S, Cochin and Anr. v. K.V. Gopinath 1972 (1) LLJ 486 SC ; and (c) Raj Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 536 . 13. In the case of Satish Chandra Anand (supra), the Apex Court held that the State can enter into contracts of temporary employment and impose special terms in each case, provided there are no inconsistence to the Constitution and those who chose to accept those terms and enter into contract are bound by them, even as the State is bound. As such the terms and conditions imposed by the Respondents in the appointment of the writ petitioner such as giving of one month notice from either side for terminating the service of the writ petitioner are binding to both the parties i.e. the writ petitioner and the Respondents. 14. The Apex Court in Senior Superintendent (supra) held that the termination of temporary Govt. servant without paying amount due to him for the notice period is illegal and ineffective. 15. Considering the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the terms and conditions mentioned in the said offer letter dated 04.03.1992 are binding to both the parties i.e. the present petitioner and the Director of Sericulture, Government of Manipur. In the facts discussed above, it is an admitted fact that the services of the petitioner had been terminated without giving one month notice nor one month's salary for the notice period. Therefore, unavoidable inference is that the termination of the service of the petitioner under the impugned order dated 31.3.2001 is in clear violation of the terms and conditions for appointment of the petitioner, which are binding not only to the petitioner but also to the Director of Sericulture, Government of Manipur. Mr. Jallaluddin, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that all the posts lying vacant as on 19.4.1999 had already been abolished. Abolition of the posts cannot be a ground for violating the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner. 16. Mr. Jallaluddin, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that all the posts lying vacant as on 19.4.1999 had already been abolished. Abolition of the posts cannot be a ground for violating the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner. 16. Regarding the second, ground, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that even though there is no strait-jacket formula for applicability of the principles of natural justice, it is a fairly settled law that the opportunity of being heard should be given to the person concerned before issuing any order which shall have the civil consequence. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel further contends that the impugned termination order dated 31.3.2001 shall certainly have the civil consequence and therefore, at least, opportunity should be given to the petitioner before passing the termination order dated 31.3.2001. This Court is also of the considered view that the submission of the learned senior counsel has force of the law. 17. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned termination order dated 31.3.2001 so far as the petitioner is concerned is required to be interfered with. Accordingly, the impugned termination order dated 31.3.2001, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The State respondents are further directed to issue the necessary reinstatement order as soon as possible but not later than 4(four) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is left to the wisdom of the respondents to decide regarding the payment of back salaries of the petitioner. 18. Writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.