T. Nandakumar Singh, J. - Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Grace, learned coun­sel appearing for the petitioner-union and Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner-Union is formed by ca­sual/contract employees of the Arts & Cul­ture Department, Govt. of Manipur and is registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and its registration No. is No.551 of 2002. The particulars of the members of the peti­tioner-Union are mentioned in Annexure- A/ 2 of the writ petition and it reads as follows:- "List of members: 1. A. Devdash Sharma L.D.C. 2. S. Shanti Devi L.D.C. 3. B. Chandragupa Singh Grade - IV 4. K. Shakhi Devi, L.D.C. 5. T. Mema Devi Jr. Lecture, 6. Th. Shakuntala Devi, L.D.C. 7. H. Inakhul Meitei, Monument, Attd. 8. M. Gouzamang, Monument Attd. 9. Ch. Iboyai Singh, Monument Attd. 10. L.Herojit Singh L.D.C. 11. Kh. Sarojkanta Singh, L.D.C. 12. N. Pramodini Devi, L.D.C. 13. W.Thoibi Devi, L.D.C. 14. Ch.Upaj it Singh, Table Accompanist, , 15. W. Nobin Singh, Jr. Lect. 16. H. Rajendro Singh, Asst. Repographist, 17. N. Chitra Devi, Asst. Chemist, 18. Th. Nilabati Devi, Preservation Asst. 19. P. Dhaneshwari Devi, L.D.C. 20. Th. Phalguni Devi, Texidermist/Lab. Asst 21. S. Girani Singh, Gallery Asst. 22. Th. Tarunibala Devi, Binder, 23. Th. Shanti Devi, C/A 24. Th.Bimola Devi, C/A 25. Ch. Ibempishak Devi, Tech. Asst. 26. R.K. Urmila Devi, Tech. Asst. 27. M. Kunjarani Devi, LDC 28. H. Leisimi, C/Attd. 29. Blow Mao, C/Attd. 30. Hariku, Grade-IV 31. Ngaihoiching, Grade - IV 32. M. Samarendro Singh, L.D.C. 33. W. Pritibala Devi, Library Asstt." 3. The members of the petitioner-Union had earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition being Civil Rule No. 148 of 1998 for a direction to the State respondents to ab­sorb their services in the regular establishment. This Court passed interim orders dated 10.3.98 and 20.3.98 respectively in C.R. No.148 of 1998 directing the respondents not to oust the members of the petitioner-Union from their services and also to pay their pay and allowances. This Court passed interim orders dated 10.3.98 and 20.3.98 respectively in C.R. No.148 of 1998 directing the respondents not to oust the members of the petitioner-Union from their services and also to pay their pay and allowances. The said Civil Rule No. 148 of 1998 was finally disposed of by this Court by passing judgment and order dated 07.12.1998 directing the State respondents to prepare a scheme on rational basis taking into account of the length of services of the members of the petitioner-Union under the State respondents with the vacancy position of the related posts and also to make proper scrutiny about their eligibility for absorption to their respective posts and also their past services shall be taken into account for the purpose of their retirement benefits, other pensionary benefits and also for the purpose of absorption also. 4. The term of the contract services of the members of the petitioner-Union had been extended vide order of the Director of Arts & Culture Department, Govt. of Manipur dated 25.7.2000. Under subsequent orders of the Director of Arts & Culture Department, Govt. of Manipur, i.e. 6.01.2001 (Annexure-A/7), 25.8.2001 (Annexure-A/8), 26.3.2002 (Annexure-A/9) and 19.02.2004 (Annexure-A/l 0), the term of the services of the mem­bers of the petitioner-Union as casual/con­tract employees had been extended upto 31.10.2003. By the impugned order dated 30.8.2005, the term of the engagement of the members of the petitioner-Union and others as casual/contract employees had been ex­tended from 02.11.2003 thereby making one day's break i.e. (01.11.2003) in the engage­ment of the members of the petitioner-Union and others as casual/contract employees. It is also stated that the members of the peti­tioner-Union are aggrieved by the said one day's break in extension of the term of the engagement of the members of the petitioner-Union as casual/contract employees of the Arts & Culture Department, Govt. of Manipur. 5. The respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that the members of the petitioner-Union, who are casual and contract employees have no right to claim for continuation in services as they are appointed without any advertisement. As per the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no such contract and causal employee has to be directed by the Court for continua­tion in service. As per the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, no such contract and causal employee has to be directed by the Court for continua­tion in service. A contempt petition had been filed against the State respondents being Con­tempt Cas(C) No.95 of 2000 for disobedi­ence of the directions of this Court passed in C.R. No. 148 of 1998 for failure to prepare the scheme for absorption of the services of the members of the petitioner-Union in regu­lar establishment. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the State respondents are not categori­cally denying the fact that the members of the petitioner-Union had been continuously serv­ing as casual or contract employees in the Arts & Culture Department, Govt. of Manipur and also that there was one day's break i.e. 01.11.2003 in issuing the impugned order dated 30.8.2005 (Annexure-A/11 to the writ petition) for extending the terms of the ser­vices of the members of the petitioner-Union as casual/contract employees. 6. Mr.N. Ibotombi, learned senior coun­sel, by placing heavy reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rattan lal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.: (1985) 4 SCC 43 contended that there should not be artificial break of one day i.e. 01.11.2003 while issuing the impugned order dated 30.8.2005 for extending the term of the ser­vices of the members of the petitioner-Union as casual/contract employees. In Rattan Lai's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court dep­recates the appointment of teachers for a pe­riod of six months and their ad-hoc appoint­ments are renewed after a break offew days. In the present case, undisputedly the State respondents while issuing the impugned or­der for extending the term of the services of the members of the petitioner-Union on ca­sual/contract basis has created one day's break in continuous services of the members of the petitioner-Union as casual/contract basis in the Arts & Culture Department, Govt. of Manipur. The Apex Court in Rabinarayan Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. :AIR 1991SC1286 held that an appointment of a teacher on 89 days basis with one day's break which deprives a teacher of his salary for the period of summer vacation and other service benefits is wholly arbitrary and suffers from the vice of discrimination. The Hon'ble Apex Court in B.R. Parineeth & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. : AIR 1992 SC 677 in para No.6 held that:- "6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in B.R. Parineeth & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. : AIR 1992 SC 677 in para No.6 held that:- "6. While deprecating direction by the gov­ernment to break service for a day or two and paying fixed salary to temporary employees we must condemn the practice of management of not making regular selection utmost within six months of occurrence of vacancy. Nor the help­lessness of government can be appreciated as expressed in the counter affidavit that despite orders the management continued with it. If the Government could not take effective measure either by superseding the management or stop­ping grant-in-aid then either it was working under pressure from Management of the pri­vate aided institutions or it was itself interested in continuing such unfortunate state of affairs. In either case the equities have been created because of doings of state itself, therefore, it should resolve it. One such method was adopted by the High Court in individual peti­tions filed by the teachers by directing the Di­rector of Education to hold selection. In pursu­ance of it some of the teachers have been regu­larized. But substantial number still remain due to State's going back on its agreement before the Court by creating obstacles in implementa­tion of the order. Many of them who have faced selection and have secured higher marks and are in zone of selection are being denied the benefit because it is claimed that such regular-ization would be contrary to reservation policy of the State. The policy is under challenge in another proceedings in the Court. Without en­tering into validity of the policy which accord­ing to petitioner results in cent per cent reser­vation we are of opinion that such practice should be put an end to, therefore, following directions are necessary to be issued : (1) Provision in clause 5 of one day's break in service is struck down as ultra vires. (2) Orders for payment offixed salary to temporary teachers is declared invalid. But it shall operate prospectively. A teacher ap­pointed temporarily shall be paid the salary that is admissible to any teacher appointed regularly." 7. For the foregoing decision, this Court is of the considered view that artificial break of one day in the continuous service of the members of the petitioner-Union as casual/ contract employees in the Arts & Culture Department, Govt. of Manipur, is arbitrary. A teacher ap­pointed temporarily shall be paid the salary that is admissible to any teacher appointed regularly." 7. For the foregoing decision, this Court is of the considered view that artificial break of one day in the continuous service of the members of the petitioner-Union as casual/ contract employees in the Arts & Culture Department, Govt. of Manipur, is arbitrary. Ac­cordingly, this Court has no alternative ex­cept to direct the State respondents not to create artificial one day's break i.e. 01.11.2003 in extending the term of the ser­vices of the members of the petitioner-Union as casual/contract employees while issuing the impugned order dated 30.8.2005 and nec­essary extension order should be issued by the respondents for not creating artificial one day's break i.e. 01.11.2003 in extending the term of the services of the members of the pe­titioner-Union as casual/contract employees within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and order of this Court, which is being fur­nished by the petitioner-Union within a period of 10(ten) days from today to the Director of Arts & Culture Department, Govt. of Manipur. 8. To the extent indicated above, this writ petition is allowed.