JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri K. Jagat, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for payment of back wages/honorarium of the petitioner Nos. 4 to 20 w.e.f. August, 2000 to March, 2003 amounting to a sum of Rs. 8,16,000 (Rupees eight lakhs and sixteen thousand) and also for quashing the Government order dated 16-02-2005 issued by the Principal Secretary (Health), Government of Manipur. 2.2. According to the petitioners, the petitioner Nos. 4 to 20 are members of the Association called “Manipur Guard Service”, a registered Association and the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the President, Secretary and the Treasurer of the said Association. The aims and objects of the said association are given as under - “AIMS AND OBJECTS (i) The aim and object for which the organisation is to provide a client to fetch a sense of security, mental peace, self-confidence and harmony through reliable quality, security service, etc. To establish a welfare to the un-employed ex-serviceman and civilian in the state, after their basic training for guard. The trained guards are drawn authenticated prior to their deployed for duty to Hospital, Projects, Institution, Bank/Financial Companies Corporate giants, etc. (ii) The code of conduct are drawn from Ex-Servicemen's and un-employed civilians as they were trained for guard and their code of conduct as follows:-- (a) Be loyal to the state and the organisation. (b) Maintain highest standard of discipline. (c) Be courteous, friendly and cheerful. (d) Promote objectives of the present organisation. (e) Be sincere, honest and truthful. (f) Carry out duties regarding the consequences. (g) Protect and promote lawful interest of clients.” 2.3. The management of the said Association has entered into agreements for providing guard services with different authorities/institutions like Regional Institute of Medical Science, Lamphelpat, Sija Hospital and Research Institute, Langol, the Sports Authority of India (SAI), Takyelpat, Imphal Hospital, RIMS Road, City Montessori School, Koirengei, Kanan Devi Memorial Academy, Imphal, etc. The management of the said Association and the concerned authorities/institutions have settled the remuneration payable to the members of the said association for rendering guard services varying from institution to institution i.e., from Rs. 1600/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred) p.m. to Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) p.m. for each guards. 2.4. The management of the said Association and the concerned authorities/institutions have settled the remuneration payable to the members of the said association for rendering guard services varying from institution to institution i.e., from Rs. 1600/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred) p.m. to Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) p.m. for each guards. 2.4. On 17-07-2000 the management of the said Association made an offer for providing guard services to the respondent No. 2 in the J.N Hospital and after having discussed the details in length, it was orally agreed between the petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 that the association would carry out free security services in the J. N Hospital prior to their formal agreement and a copy of the proposed terms and conditions was submitted on the same day. On the next day i.e., 18-07-2000 the petitioner No. 2 submitted a representation to the respondent No. 3, Superintendent, J N Hospital for carrying out the said free security services for ten days, with a request for providing accommodation of 17 (seventeen) guards. The Respondent No. 3 allowed to carry out the free security service which was done from 01-08-2000 to 10-08-2000. 2.5. Being satisfied with the services rendered by the petitioner Nos. 4 to 20 during the said period of 10 (ten) days, the respondent No. 3 verbally instructed the petitioners to continue providing their guard services with the promise that a fixed remuneration of Rs. 2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred) p.m. would be paid for each petitioner deployed therein. The petitioner Nos. 4 to 20 continued to provide their services in the J.N. Hospital by roaster as per agreement and promise for payment of fixed remuneration as stated above. The respondent No. 3 addressed a letter dated 10-08-2000 to the respondent No. 2 stating that during the free security camp being conducted by the petitioners, there had been substantial improvement in the security related matters in the Hospital and that the petitioners were rendering outstanding services in J.N Hospital and accordingly, the respondent No. 2 was requested to consider the engagement of Manipur Guard Service in the J.N. Hospital and to seek Government's approval in the interest of the Hospital and the public. The respondent No. 2, in turn, addressed a letter dated 19-10-2000 to the Commissioner (Health), Government of Manipur requesting him to consider the proposal of the Manipur Guard Service favourably and to convey the approval of the State Government at an early date in public interest. By the said letter, the respondent No. 2 informed the Commissioner (Health) about the financial involvement for 12 (twelve) months being a total of Rs. 5,10,000/- (Rupees five lakhs and ten thousand) with the request that the funds might be included in R.E. 2000 - 2001. 2.6. On 25-02-2001 the respondent No. 3 addressed another letter dated 25-02-2001 to the respondent No. 2, enclosing therewith a copy of the representation submitted by the Secretary, Manipur Guard Service, highlighting the requirement of security service for another one year and requesting him to obtain Government's approval to the engagement of the security guards in the interest of the public. After referring to a letter dated 14-03-2001, it appears that the file was processed and accordingly, a letter dated 28-04-2001 was addressed to the respondent No. 2 by the Deputy Secretary (Health) requesting him to indicate the sources of funds for payment of monthly honorarium to the security guards and debitable head of account in order to enable the Department to examine the proposal at an early date. 2.7. As the proposal was not materialised, the respondent No. 3 addressed a reminder dated 30-04-2002, enclosing therewith a representation, to the respondent No. 2 stating therein that the services of Manipur Guard Service was still required for proper and smooth functioning of the J.N. Hospital and requested him to arrange Government's approval to the engagement of Manipur Guard Service in the J.N. Hospital and payment of minimum financial assistance as early as possible. Since no payment of honorarium was forthcoming for more than 20 (twenty) months, a discussion was held on 10-06-2002 between the petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 3 regarding the rate of payment of honorarium/wages and in the discussion, it was agreed that the honorarium be paid at the rate of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred) p.m. for each individual and accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 addressed a letter dated 10-06-2002 to the respondent No. 3 to convey the sanction for continuance of the guard services. 2.8. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred) p.m. for each individual and accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 addressed a letter dated 10-06-2002 to the respondent No. 3 to convey the sanction for continuance of the guard services. 2.8. On 26-06-2002 the respondent No. 2 addressed to the Principal Secretary (Health) a letter informing that the J.N. Hospital, Imphal had been utilising the services of the petitioner Nos. 4 to 20 since August, 2000 pending formal approval of the Government till then. By the said letter, the respondent No. 2 informed the Principal Secretary (Health), Govt. of Manipur that the petitioners were agreeable to an honorarium of Rs. 1500/- per head per month instead of Rs. 2500/- per head per month showing the expenditure likely to be incurred as Rs. 8,16,000/- and the Principal Secretary (Health) was also requested to move Finance Department to accord expenditure sanction of a sum of Rs. 8,16,000/- with permission to excess authorisation beyond Rs. 15 lakhs of D.E. 2002 - 2003 subject to reflection at R.E. 2002 - 2003 so that the Hospital might utilise the services of the petitioner Nos. 4 to 20 upto March, 2003. This letter was followed by another letter dated 27-08-2002 by which the respondent No. 2, after referring to the earlier letters, requested the Commissioner (Health), Government of Manipur for consideration of the matter. Without making any payment thereof, the respondent No. 3, in compliance with the memo dated 10-03-2003 of the Medical Directorate, issued an order dated 14-03-2003 declaring that the services of the Security Guards at J.N. Hospital would be deemed to have ceased with immediate effect. On receipt of a copy of the said order dated 14-03-2003, the petitioner No. 2 submitted a representation dated 22-03-2003 for payment of the services rendered by the petitioner Nos. 4 to 20 for a total period of 32 months. 2.9. Having no alternative, the petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 680 of 2003 which was disposed of on 30-05-2003 with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioners and pass an appropriate order for payment of the said honorarium without mentioning the time period for compliance. 2.9. Having no alternative, the petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 680 of 2003 which was disposed of on 30-05-2003 with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioners and pass an appropriate order for payment of the said honorarium without mentioning the time period for compliance. Since the respondents paid no heed towards compliance of the court's order, the petitioners filed another writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 121 of 2004 which was also disposed of on 05-04-2004 directing the respondents that the earlier direction be complied with within 90 days. That the direction was not complied with deliberately compelled the petitioners to file a contempt case being CC No. 4 of 2005. Ultimately, the Principal Secretary (Health) issued an order dated 16-02-2005 stating that the petitioners are not entitled to any wages on Government account for the security service at J.N. Hospital on the ground that the State Government has not issued any authorisation order/letter for engagement of the petitioners. The present writ petition has been filed to challenge the legality and correctness of the said Government order dated 16-02-2005. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the petitioners had rendered guard services as agreed verbally between the petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 with the full knowledge of the other respondents and with the understanding that the approval of the State Government would be obtained in the meantime, they had a legitimate expectation of receiving a minimum service charges in the form of honorarium; that the Article 23 of the Constitution is violated and that the principles of natural justice are violated due to non- application of mind before the impugned order was issued by the Principal Secretary (Health). No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents and therefore, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that since the petitioners were engaged without any authority/permission from the State Government, they were not entitled to wages/honorarium. 4. Admittedly, the petitioners have rendered guard services without any formal agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents except on oral understanding between the petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 that approval of the State Government would be obtained and in the meanwhile the petitioners would continue proving guard services in the interest of the hospital and the public. It is not disputed that initially the association for which the petitioners are members, made an offer for free guard services for ten days and being satisfied with their services, the respondent No. 3 informed the respondent No. 2 about the requirement of guard services and requested for seeking Government's approval and the respondent No. 2, in turn, requested the Commissioner (Health) to consider the proposal and convey the approval thereof. From this letter itself, the State Government became aware of the fact that the security guards were highly essential for the proper functioning of J.N. Hospital but as usual and in routine manner without any seriousness, the Deputy Secretary (Health) wrote a letter after about six months enquiring about the source of funds and debitable heads. As is evident from the correspondences amongst the respondents, the matter was dragged on for more two years without any conclusion whether the approval could be granted for continuance of guard services or not culminating, ultimately, in the termination of their services without any payment. 5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions including the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 that the State Government being an institution, must act fairly and reasonably. It is no doubt true that the State Government has no heart and soul but is manned by human beings who are none other than the elected representatives of the citizens and the public servants. Then, the question that arises, is as to whether the actions of the State Government are just, fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances. To decide the issue involved herein, the following circumstances are required to be considered: “(a) The petitioners are daily wagers forming an association and their survival depends upon the wages earned by them from rendering their services as guards; (b) The services of the petitioners have been utilised by the respondent No. 3 for a total period of 32 months with the full knowledge of the State Government; (c) The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 informed the State Government that the security guards were essential for the proper functioning of J.N. Hospital; (d) The State Government became aware of the fact that the services of the petitioners were being continued pending approval from the State Government; (e) The State Government did not take any prompt decision to stop the petitioners from continuing to provide guard services nor did it take a decision granting approval for engagement of the petitioners; (f) The State Government did not take any action against the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 for having utilised the services of the petitioners without any authorisation order/letter from it; (g) Had the State Government taken a prompt decision in the year 2000 itself disagreeing the proposal, the present problem of payment of wages would have been avoided; (h) Since there is no illegality in the engagement of the petitioners except the procedural lapses and technicalities, the State Government could have given a post facto approval keeping in mind the sufferings of the petitioners as has been done in many cases; (i) The amount involved for payment of wages is not that very big, the payment of which will be beyond the capacity of the State Government; (j) The petitioners had the legitimate expectation when they were verbally asked to continue proving their services with the understanding that the approval could be obtained in the near future.” It is no doubt true that in normal course, an agreement ought to have been entered into between the petitioners and the State Government before the petitioners commenced providing their guard services. In the present case, the petitioners commenced providing their services initially by an offer for free services for ten days and after satisfying their performance, the petitioners were verbally asked to continue providing their service with the understanding that the approval would be obtained from the State Government. As is evident from the correspondences, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 who are the administrative heads of J.N. Hospital, made their endeavours to obtain approval from the State Government. It is quite natural in that situation that the petitioners believing that the State Government might grant the approval one day, agreed to continue providing their services. The petitioners being daily wagers and having no knowledge of legal technicalities believed what the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 said to them. It is quite natural in that situation that the petitioners believing that the State Government might grant the approval one day, agreed to continue providing their services. The petitioners being daily wagers and having no knowledge of legal technicalities believed what the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 said to them. If the petitioners knew at the beginning that such problem of payment would arise in future in the absence of a formal agreement, they would have discontinued providing services. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the petitioners have played fraud on the respondents. In the present day circumstances, nobody and daily wager in particular, would provide free services for 32 months without having food with them to eat. One factor giving rise to this problem is that the State Government failed to take a prompt decision either to grant or not to grant approval and the State Government kept mum for months together. Had the decision been taken in the year 2000 itself when the State Government became aware of the said proposal, the present litigation would have been avoided. This is the third time that the petitioners approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of writ petition to redress their grievances. This court has considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case involving daily wagers and had any big contractor surrounded by legal experts been in place of the petitioners, this court would not have interfered at all. Considering the overall circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the non-payment of wages/honorarium by the respondents to the petitioners is not just, fair and reasonable resulting in the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and accordingly, the order dated 16-02-2005 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Since the services of the petitioners were being continued with the knowledge of the State Government, direction is being issued against all the respondents. 6. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed and consequently, the Government order dated 16-02-2005 is quashed and set aside and accordingly, I direct that the respondents shall pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 8,16,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs sixteen thousand) only being the wages/honorarium, for the services already rendered by the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. 8,16,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs sixteen thousand) only being the wages/honorarium, for the services already rendered by the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There shall be no order as to cost. ___