Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1255 (GAU)

M. James Tungoe v. State of Nagaland

2019-11-20

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2019
JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. . 1. Heard Mr. Justin Magh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also Ms. Lucy, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the state respondents. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this writ petition as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows:- By 3 different appointment orders No. FE-2/4/92(pt)/3929-3434 dated 20.6.2013 No. FE-2/4/92(pt)/11, 333-40 dated 4.3.2014 and appointment order No. FE-2/4/92(pt)/11, 341-47 dated 4.3.2014, issued on the same day the petitioners were appointed as Forest Guards on ad hoc and temporary basis with scale pay and with Grade Pay plus all other allowances admissible under the Rules. The terms and conditions of their appointments were same therefore, only one of the appointment orders is reproduced here below:- 'Government of Nagaland Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Head of Forest Force Nagaland Kohima Office Order No. Dated Kohima the June 2013 Sub: Appointment purely on an ad hoc and on temporary basis to the post of Forest Guard. Ref: In compliance of Government directive of Commissioner Secretary Shri M. James Tungoe, son of Shri Mhonbemo Tungoe, a bona fide resident of Old Riphyim, Weokha District is hereby appointed purely on an ad hoc and on temporary basis to be post Forest Guard in the scale of pay of Rs. 5200-20-200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/- per month plus all other allowances as are admissible under the Rules amended from time to time with effect from the date he joins duty in the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kohima Division. Further, the appointment is subject to the following conditions:- 2. The ad hoc and on purely temporary basis appointment is subject to good police report and to his being found medically fit by a Medical Officer not below the rank of Civil surgeon. 3. The ad hoc and oh purely temporary basis appointment is further subject to termination without any notice at any time. 4. Further, as approved by Government vide the said communication; the appointment is made purely on an ad hoc and temporary basis to ensure that Office and Field works are not hampered. 5. Furthermore, as and when regular appointments are made; the appointment on an ad hoc and on temporary basis can be terminated. 6. He will not be eligible for appointment if he has more than one wife living. 5. Furthermore, as and when regular appointments are made; the appointment on an ad hoc and on temporary basis can be terminated. 6. He will not be eligible for appointment if he has more than one wife living. 7. The appointee should assume duty within 30 (thirty) days from the date of issue of this Order and on expiry of which the appointment shall be treated as cancelled. 8. The service is transferrable to any place within Nagaland. Sd/- (M. Lokeswar Rao) Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Head of Forest Force, Nagaland, Kohima." 3. Hardly 6 months after their appointment orders were issued their pays were held up in pursuant to the direction given by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. However, by order dated 30.3.2016 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest vide his office order No. 249, the contractual appointments of the petitioners were extended for another period of 6 (six) months w.e.f. 16.10.2015 to 15.4.2016. Thereafter, no more extension order was issued. On 24.9.2018, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 30.3.2016 extending their contractual appointment on the ground that they were appointed on temporary basis without mentioning any time period for continuation of their service therefore, the question of extension does not arise. During the pendency of the writ petition, the state respondents issued an order dated 9.10.2018 terminating the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 16.4.2017 i.e. the next day after the day on which their service period expired as per the extension order issued on 30.3.2016. 4. Mr. Justin Magh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners were treated as temporary employees, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were sent for training and the petitioner No. 3 successfully completed the same though the petitioner No. 2 could not join the training due to lack of accommodation. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 was not send for training but he was made to subscribe Non Pension Scheme (NPS). Therefore, the petitioners were temporary employees and can be terminated from service only as per the provisions of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1964. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 was not send for training but he was made to subscribe Non Pension Scheme (NPS). Therefore, the petitioners were temporary employees and can be terminated from service only as per the provisions of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1964. The learned counsel referred to rule 5(a) and (b) of the said Rules and submitted that as per the provisions of these rule before a temporary Government servant can be terminated from service he must be given one month's notice but since this was not followed, termination order is illegal and void. 5. Ms. Lucy, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submitted that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis and not against sanctioned posts, under certain terms and conditions given in their appointment orders. And since they have accepted their contract appointments with the terms and conditions, they cannot question their termination from their services. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that the petitioners were terminated since they were not regularize in their service and were found to be inefficient in performing their duties. 6. On careful reading of the appointment order, it appears that though the petitioners were appointed with pay scale, Grade Pay and all allowances admissible under the rules, their appointment was purely on ad hoc to meet the exigencies till regular appointments are made. Further, from the language used in the orders and the terms and conditions given therein it appears that the petitioners appointment were subject to termination without any notice. Accepting the terms and conditions given in the appointment orders, the petitioners joined their respective posts therefore, they cannot question the same terms and conditions of their appointment at this time that too after so much of time has gone by since their appointment orders were issued and their extension order was issued. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.