Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 12 (MAN)

E. Sujata Devi v. State of Manipur

2022-01-20

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 15.11.2018 issued by the Secretary, Education (S) Department, Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents to release the entitled pay and allowances/back wages of Rs.10,24,802/- to the petitioner for the services rendered by the petitioner's husband late H.Nishikanta Singh, an ad-hoc employee of the State Government, who died in harness while in service as a primary teacher under the Department of Education (S), during the period from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was initially appointed as primary teacher at Khelakhong L.P. School on ad-hoc basis for an initial period of three months with effect from the date of joining and thereafter, given post facto extension vide various orders. The petitioner's husband continued to render an uninterrupted service with the legitimate expectation that his service will be given post facto extension as earlier, but after a brief illness, he expired on 2.10.2013. However, the pay and allowances for the service rendered by the petitioner's husband was not sanctioned. 3. Further case of the petitioner is that she had filed W.P.(C) No.214 of 2016 and the same was disposed of on 15.7.2016 with a direction that the respondent State should verify the service of the petitioner's husband from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013 and accordingly, release the pay and allowances on such verification. Since the respondent State has not complied with the order, the petitioner has filed Contempt Case (C) No.120 of 2017 and during the pendency of the Contempt Case, the verification committee constituted by the office of the second respondent, verified the service rendered by the petitioner's husband by issuing an order dated 15.7.2017. By another order dated 29.8.2017, the first respondent denied the verification report submitted by the office of the second respondent. On 22.1.2018, in Contempt Case (C) No.120 of 2017, this Court initiated contempt proceedings against the second respondent. On 23.8.2018, the second respondent submitted to the first respondent the financial involvement in connection with payment of pay and allowances of ad-hoc employees and according to the said calculation, the petitioner is entitled to get payment of pay and allowances of Rs.10,24,802/- which the first respondent, by the impugned order dated 15.11.2018, has arbitrarily deprived of her entitled claim. On 23.8.2018, the second respondent submitted to the first respondent the financial involvement in connection with payment of pay and allowances of ad-hoc employees and according to the said calculation, the petitioner is entitled to get payment of pay and allowances of Rs.10,24,802/- which the first respondent, by the impugned order dated 15.11.2018, has arbitrarily deprived of her entitled claim. The Contempt Case (C) No.120 of 2017 was closed by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 4. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the term of ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner's husband was extended from time to time and the last extension was issued on 27.11.2010 extending the term of ad-hoc appointment of 78 employees, including the husband of the petitioner for a period up to 31.8.2010. Thereafter, no extension was given to the husband of the petitioner. However, the petitioner stated that after rendering service till 28.9.2013 and a brief illness, her husband was expired on 2.10.2013 and hence, the petitioner claim pay and allowance for the period from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013. 5. It is stated that the ad-hoc services of the husband of the petitioner was extended up to 31.8.2010 and hence, the late H. Nishikanta Singh has no right to continue in his ad-hoc service beyond the term of his adhoc appointment or extension of his ad-hoc service. As such, continuation of the ad-hoc service of the petitioner's husband beyond the date of extension of his service and also without sanction of the competent authority has to be treated as unauthorized service or voluntary service which may have been rendered in collusion with the then Headmaster of the School. Despite the letter of Director of Education (S) to the Head Master of Moirangkhom Junior High Court to produce the duty roster of the petitioner's husband, the same has not produced so far. 6. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner filed another W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018 and the same was disposed of on 31.7.2018 with a direction to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner for remuneration for the services rendered by her husband. 6. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner filed another W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018 and the same was disposed of on 31.7.2018 with a direction to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner for remuneration for the services rendered by her husband. Pursuant to the order dated 31.7.2018, the Commissioner issued an order dated 15.11.2018 whereby informed that the husband of the petitioner was not serving under the Education (S) Department after 31.8.2010. However, the petitioner filed Contempt Case (C) No.120 of 2017 and the said contempt case was closed by recording the impugned order. According to the respondents 1 and 2, no legally entitled amount to be paid for the services rendered by the petitioner's husband. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Assailing the impugned order dated 15.11.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's husband was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis as primary teacher on 16.10.1998 in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-1800 per month with dearness allowance and other allowances as admissible under the rules for an initial period of three months with effect from the date of joining. Subsequent upon the said appointment, the services of petitioner husband was utilized at Moirangkhom Junior High School as primary teacher till his sudden demise on 2.10.2013, after a very brief illness. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during the period of engagement of the service of the petitioner's husband, the competent authority, by virtue of various extension orders dated 4.11.1999, 13.12.1999, 22.5.2000, 26.9.200, 14.10.2005, 3.8.2006, 2.5.2007, 19.3.2008 and 27.11.2010 issued from time to time, extended his service along with other employees working as primary teachers under the Department of Education (S) in different schools, after utilization and by giving a retrospective effect. Accordingly, the pay and allowances of the petitioner's husband were drawn from time to time after getting approval of extension order on post facto basis and that the petitioner's husband during his life time continued to render an uninterrupted service with the legitimate expectation that his service will be given post facto extension as earlier. 9. Accordingly, the pay and allowances of the petitioner's husband were drawn from time to time after getting approval of extension order on post facto basis and that the petitioner's husband during his life time continued to render an uninterrupted service with the legitimate expectation that his service will be given post facto extension as earlier. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that vide the extension order dated 27.11.2010, the petitioner's husband along with other ad-hoc primary teachers who were working in different schools under the Education Department (S) were given post facto extension till 31.8.2010 and that though the services of the employees including that of the petitioner's husband had been uninterruptedly utilized by the authorities even after the expiry of the extended period of service given on 27.11.2019 which gave extension of service upto 31.8.2010. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that after rendering the service till 28.9.2013, the petitioner's husband felt into a brief illness and expired on 2.10.2013. Even though the petitioner's husband service was utilized by the authorities till 28.9.2013, no extension orders were issued by the competent authorities for the services rendered by the petitioner's husband for about three years from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013. 11. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, earlier the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.214 of 2016 before this Court and this Court, by an order dated 15.7.2016, disposed of the writ petition directing the State respondents to verify the service of the petitioner's husband from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013 and if it was found that the petitioner's husband served as primary teacher, the State Government may release the pay and allowances. Since the State respondents failed to comply with the directions issued in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2016, the petitioner has filed Contempt Case No.120 of 2016. Pending Contempt Case, the Principal Secretary, Education(S) has produced a purported compliance order dated 29.8.2017 stating that the ad-hoc service of the petitioner's husband was not extended beyond 31.8.2010 and therefore, he has no right to continue the service without authority and there is no proper satisfactory report for attending school. Hence, he is not entitled to pay and allowance with effect from 1.9.2010. 12. Hence, he is not entitled to pay and allowance with effect from 1.9.2010. 12. Learned counsel then submitted that since order dated 29.8.2017 is not in consonance with the order dated 15.7.2016, issued notice to the first respondent to show cause as to why he shall not be held guilty of contempt. In fact, the Director, Education (S), in his letter dated 23.2.2018 addressed to the Principal Secretary, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is entitled to get pay and allowance of Rs.10,24,802/-. Subsequently, the Contempt Case No.120 of 2017 was closed by this Court by an order dated 28.5.2018 giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 29.8.2017. Challenging the order dated 29.8.2017, the petitioner has field W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018 and to make payment of Rs.10,24,802/0 to the petitioner for the service rendered by her husband. By an order dated 31.7.2018, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to work out the entitlements of the petitioner after verifying the relevant records and thereafter, make necessary payment. Since the respondent authorities failed to comply with the said direction, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.2 of 2019 for non- compliance of the order. Pending Contempt Case No.2 of 2019, the respondent authorities produced the impugned order dated 15.11.2018 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Thus, this Court closed the Contempt Case No.2 of 2019 giving liberty to pursue the remedy in accordance with law. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 13. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary manner and without application of mind to wrongfully deny the rightful claim of the petitioner for payment of the entitled pay and allowance for the service rendered by her deceased husband during his life time as ad-hoc primary teacher, particularly for the period from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013. He would submit that the competent authority is seemingly adamant to deprive the legitimate claim of the petitioner, who have not even spared of resorting to play blame game, as it is clear from the different stands they have taken by stating that the report of the Director, Education (S) is found very irregular at one instant (order dated 29.8.2017) and that the petitioner's husband may have rendered service in collusion with the then Headmaster in the other (order dated 15.11.2018), which is very unfortunate and highly contemptuous. 14. Placing reliance upon the order dated 30.3.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 filed by the similarly situated persons who served as primary teachers on ad-hoc basis along with the petitioner's husband under the Department of Education (S), learned counsel for the petitioner prays for similar relief as granted therein. He would also draw the attention of the Court that as against the order dated 30.3.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014, the State respondent preferred SLP (C) Diary No.33264/2018 and the same was dismissed on 12.12.2018 and accordingly, the respondent State issued an order dated 24.4.2019 granting payment of back wages for the period from 1.9.2010 to 30.3.2015 to 71 petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 and thus, prayed for similar relief to the case of the petitioner's husband also. 15. Per contra, learned Government Advocate contended that the petitioner's husband is not similarly situated person as mentioned in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 and that there is any legally entitled amount to be paid for the services rendered by the petitioner's husband. According to learned Government Advocate, earlier the petitioner has approached this Court claiming for the same benefit, but she could not establish the fact that her husband was continuing his ad-hoc service under a valid order. Thus, this Court, after examining the attending facts and circumstances, has closed the Contempt Cases filed by the petitioner. 16. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the ad-hoc services of the husband of the petitioner was extended up to 31.8.2010 and hence, he has no right to continue in ad-hoc service beyond the term of his ad-hoc appointment or extension of his ad-hoc service. 16. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the ad-hoc services of the husband of the petitioner was extended up to 31.8.2010 and hence, he has no right to continue in ad-hoc service beyond the term of his ad-hoc appointment or extension of his ad-hoc service. As such the continuation of the ad-hoc services of the petitioner's husband beyond the date of extension of his service and also without sanction of the competent authority has to be treated as unauthorized service or voluntary service which may have been rendered in collusion with the then Headmaster of the school. 17. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 18. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband was appointed as primary teacher on ad-hoc basis for a period of three months initially with effect from the date of his joining duty in the school as per the order of the Director of Education (S) dated 16.10.1998 and the term of ad-hoc appointment of her late husband was extended from time to time and the last extension order was issued on 27.11.2010 extending the term of ad-hoc appointment of 78 employees, including the petitioner's husband, for a period up to 31.8.2010. Thereafter, no extension was given to the husband of the petitioner. However, the petitioner's husband continued the service till 28.9.2013 and upon brief illness, her husband died on 2.10.2013. Hence, the petitioner claims pay and allowance of her late husband for the period from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013. In support of her claim, the petitioner had produced the order of this Court dated 30.3.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014, wherein the respondent authorities were directed to verify the service and if it is found that the petitioners therein rendered their service, the State was directed to release their pay and allowances. According to the petitioner, as against the order dated 30.3.2015 passed in the said writ petition, SLP has been preferred and the same was dismissed and after the dismissal of the SLP, the Commissioner, Education(S), vide order dated 24.4.2019 directed to release payment of back wages for the period from 1.9.2010 to 30.3.2015 for 71 primary teachers with pay/wages to be fixed as applicable in Grade Pay structure. 19.Though the respondent authorities contend that the husband of the petitioner is not similarly situated person as that of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014, nothing has been produced by the respondents to show how the petitioner's husband is not similar to that of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014. On a perusal of the order dated 30.3.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014, it is clear that the said writ petition was instituted by 71 primary ad-hoc teachers praying for release of their pay and allowances for the period from 1.9.2010 till the filing of the writ petition. In the case on hand also, the petitioner claims that her husband is entitled for pay and allowances from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013. 20. At this juncture, learned Government Advocate urged that the services of the petitioner's husband was not extended beyond 31.8.2010 and therefore, he has no right to continue the service without authority and there is no proper satisfactory report for attending the school and hence, he is not entitled the pay and allowance with effect from 1.9.2010. 21. It is pertinent to note that similar is the argument raised by the respondent State in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 and this Court, upon hearing the respective counsel, passed the following direction: 'Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the State respondents shall verify the service of the petitioners more particularly the service period from 1st September, 2010 till date for which the petitioners claimed that they served as Primary Teachers. On such verification if it is found that they had rendered their service, the State Govt. may release their pay and allowances. This exercise shall be done within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.' 22. As against order dated 30.3.2015, the respondent State preferred SLP (C) Diary No.33264 of 2018 and the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.12.2018, which is after passing of the impugned order herein dated 15.11.2018. Pursuant to the dismissal of the SLP, the Commissioner, Education(S) passed an order on 24.4.2019 to allow payment of back wages to all 71 petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014. Pursuant to the dismissal of the SLP, the Commissioner, Education(S) passed an order on 24.4.2019 to allow payment of back wages to all 71 petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014. While issuing the order dated 24.4.2019, the Commissioner observed as under: 'Whereas, the said U.O. No. of the Finance Department (PIC) for back wages was subject to the condition that (i) Pay fixation shall be done in GP pay structure of FD (PIC) and not in AGP pay structure as AGP pay structure is applicable only to regular employees and (ii) Constitute a Committee headed by Director of Education (S) to verify the services of the petitioners within a stipulated time. Whereas the Education (S) Department has constituted a Committee headed by the Director of Education (S) as Chairman for verification of the adhoc services of the above mentioned 71 (seven one) petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 vide order of even No. dated 19.03.2019. And whereas the Committee has submitted its report vide letter No.AO/25/AA/2009(10)-DE(S)IV dated 16.4.2019 of the Director of Education (S) conveying that after due examination of all available records, the 71 (seventy one) exadhoc employees who are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 were found to have rendered their service as adhoc employees during the period from 01.09.2010 to 30.03.2015.' 23. Thus, it is clear that after passing the impugned order herein, the Committee has submitted a report on 16.4.2019 to the effect that 71 petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 were found to have rendered their service as ad-hoc employees during the period from 01.09.2010 to 31.03.2015. It is admitted by the respondent authorities that the petitioner's husband also rendered services as ad-hoc primary teacher, which is similar to that of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order dated 15.11.2018 was passed by the Commissioner, Education (S) without verifying the service rendered by the petitioner's husband. Moreover, while issuing the impugned order, there is no such Committee to verify the ad-hoc service rendered by the petitioner's husband. In the impugned order, the Commissioner, simply stated that the continuation of petitioner's husband in ad-hoc service without sanction of the competent authority has to be treated as unauthorized service or voluntary service which may have been rendered in collusion with the then Headmaster of the school concerned without approval of the competent authority. In the impugned order, the Commissioner, simply stated that the continuation of petitioner's husband in ad-hoc service without sanction of the competent authority has to be treated as unauthorized service or voluntary service which may have been rendered in collusion with the then Headmaster of the school concerned without approval of the competent authority. The aforesaid view taken by the Commissioner is admittedly contrary to the letter of the Director of Education (S) dated 23.2.2018 addressed to the Principal Secretary (S), wherein the Director has clearly stated the financial involvement of the petitioner as Rs.10,24,802/-. The aforesaid conclusion of the Director is pursuant to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2016 and pending Contempt Case No.120 of 2017. Thus, it is clear that while issuing the letter dated 23.2.2018, the respondent State is of the view that the petitioner has to be paid Rs.10,24,802/- towards the pay and allowances due to the services rendered by her late husband. 24. It appears that in compliance of the order dated 15.7.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2016, the Principal Secretary, issued an order dated 29.8.2017, wherein it has been observed as under: 'Under the above facts and circumstances stated above and also after careful examination of the matter, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that the adhoc service of (Late) H.Nishikanta Singh was not extended beyond 31.08.2010, he has no right to continue service without authority and there is no proper satisfactory report for attending school/Office. Hence, he is not entitled to pay and allowance w.e.f. 01.09.2010.' 25. Challenging the said order dated 29.08.2017, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018 contending that the petitioner's husband service was utilized continuously and formal orders of extensions were issued later on, as also can be seen from the last order dated 27.11.2010 by which his service was extended upto 31.08.2010. However, he continued to serve till 28.09.2013 as certified by the Director, Education(S) as evident from the letter dated 15.7.2017 though no formal extension order was issued. 26. By the order dated 31.7.2018, this Court passed the following order: 'In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner for remuneration for the service rendered by her husband. 4. 26. By the order dated 31.7.2018, this Court passed the following order: 'In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner for remuneration for the service rendered by her husband. 4. It goes without saying that, a person who has been appointed by the authorities is entitled to receive such remuneration as provided under rules for the service rendered as non-payment for the service rendered will not be permissible. The authorities will accordingly work out the entitlements of the petitioner after verifying the relevant records, and thereafter, make necessary payment, which exercise shall be undertaken by the respondent authorities within a period of three months from today, failing which, it will carry an interest rate of 6% per annum on the entitled amount due.' 27. Admittedly, this Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e. in W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018 issued a positive direction to the respondent authorities to work out the entitlements of the petitioner after verifying the relevant records and thereafter, make necessary payment. As against the said order, the respondent State has not preferred any appeal and allowed the order to attain finality. 28. Though the respondent State contend that they have issued the impugned order pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018, admittedly, the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner, Education (S) in violation of the positive direction of this Court. In fact, the impugned order has been passed while facing the contempt in Contempt Case No.2 of 2019 filed against the order dated 31.7.2018 in W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018 in a hurriedly and arbitrary manner stating that the order of the Court has been complied with. The approach adopted by the respondent authorities is highly contemnable, as in the earlier correspondence, the Director of School Education is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,24,802/- towards the pay and allowance due to the petitioner's husband. When that being the case, contrary to the same and contrary to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018, the Commissioner, Education (S) has issued the impugned order, which is unsustainable in law. 29. Taking advantage of the non-extension order to the petitioner's husband, the respondent State cannot contend that the services of the petitioner's husband was not utilized. 29. Taking advantage of the non-extension order to the petitioner's husband, the respondent State cannot contend that the services of the petitioner's husband was not utilized. In fact, a certificate issued by the Head Mistress of Moirangkhom Junior Higher School dated 25.6.2015 has been enclosed along with the writ petition, wherein it has been certified as under: 'This is to certify that Shri Huidrom Nishikanta Singh of Yaiskul Sougaijam Leirak, Imphal, who has been appointed as Ad-hoc Primary Teacher at Moirangkhom Jr. High School as per initial orders No.46-4-92-ED(V)(I) dt. 16.10.1998 and extended from time to time upto the end of 31.08.2010 vide order No.12(HC)81/2009-SE(S), dated 27.11.2010 has been rendering his duty assigned to him to this school till 28/09/2013.' 30. The petitioner has also enclosed the attendance registers of her late husband to show that he had rendered services till 28.9.2013. In fact, as stated supra, while addressing the letter dated 15.7.2018 to the Principal Secretary, the Director of Education (S) has verified the said certificate issued by the Head Mistress of the school and the attendance registers of the petitioner's husband. When the Director of Education, who is one of the authorities in the Education Department has verified the certificate and the attendance registers and having satisfied and found to be issued by the school Head Mistress, he had forwarded the same to the Principal Secretary for necessary action. While so, contrary to the earlier stand taken, the respondent authorities cannot contend that the aforesaid certificate was issued in collusion with the then Head Mistress of the school. Furthermore, the contention of the respondent State that the petitioner has failed to establish that her husband was continuing his adhoc service under a valid order, cannot also be countenanced. 31. While passing the order in W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's husband who has been appointed by the authorities and also rendered the service till 28.9.2013 is entitled to pay and allowances and accordingly, directed the respondents to make necessary payment to the petitioner as her husband died. While issuing aforesaid direction, this Court had also observed that if the respondent authorities failed to make payment within three months from the date of passing of the order, the amount entitled will carry an interest rate of 6% per annum. While issuing aforesaid direction, this Court had also observed that if the respondent authorities failed to make payment within three months from the date of passing of the order, the amount entitled will carry an interest rate of 6% per annum. This shows that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court is of the view that the Court has been satisfied by the petitioner that her deceased husband rendered services from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013 and therefore, she is entitled to the pay and allowances of her husband. If really, the respondent State is aggrieved by the said order, they can very well prefer an appeal, but they have failed to do so. In the absence of any appeal and having allowed the order to attain finality, it can be concluded that contrary to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.652 of 2018, the impugned order came to be passed. This Court is of the view that the petitioner's husband is similarly placed person as in the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 who are also working as ad-hoc primary teachers and they have been allowed payment of back wages for the period from 1.9.2010 to 30.03.2015. 32. It is not the case of the respondent State that the petitioner is financially well and is in good employment and was earning monthly income. On the other hand, the records reveal that the petitioner is a widow and lost her husband and also living without any Government job or other employment. She is living in a miserable condition of life without any source of income of her own with her two daughters, who are presently studying. Only with the little monetary support given by her in-laws, the petitioner is running from pillar to post to make ends meet. As could be seen from the records and also as narrated above, from the year 2016 onwards, the petitioner is struggling by filing writ petition after writ petition to get the entitled amount of her deceased husband. When this Court issued directions in the earlier writ petitions to consider the claim of the petitioner and on account of the non-compliance of the said direction, she had filed Contempt Cases would show that the petitioner has been dragged unnecessarily to the litigation by taking advantage of the non-extension of the service of the petitioner's husband beyond 31.8.2010. 33. When this Court issued directions in the earlier writ petitions to consider the claim of the petitioner and on account of the non-compliance of the said direction, she had filed Contempt Cases would show that the petitioner has been dragged unnecessarily to the litigation by taking advantage of the non-extension of the service of the petitioner's husband beyond 31.8.2010. 33. It is pertinent to point out that the ad-hoc appointments are made by the State Government from time to time in respect of various persons in many departments. It is the first ad-hoc appointment orders only which prescribe a specific period, say for six months or three months. But the subsequent orders which extended the period of ad-hoc appoints are hardly never issued by the State Government before the expiry of the period of ad- hoc appointments. This is, admittedly, evident from the various orders issued by the State Government in the instant case itself. It is also seen from the records that the subsequent extension orders issued by the State Government, in various cases including the present case, extending the period of ad-hoc appointments, have always condoned the unauthorized service rendered by the alleged employees whose salaries have been paid later. If that be the case, there is no reason as to why the alleged unauthorized service of the petitioner's husband shall not be condoned as has been done in the past in respect of a large of persons and the benefits so extended to them shall not be extended to him as well. An illustration is given in the case of W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014. 34. After a series of litigations, the matter has been finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Diary No.332764 of 2018 dated 12.12.2018, which was preferred against the order dated 30.3.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.1016 of 2014 and pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an order dated 24.4.2019 has been passed by the respondent authority allowing payment of back wages for the period 01.09.2010 to 30.03.2015 for 71 similarly situated ad-hoc primary teachers. In the light of the above order dated 24.4.2019, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's husband is similarly situated person and accordingly, he is entitled payment of back wages for the period from 01.09.2010 to 28.09.2013 for the services rendered by him as primary teacher. 35. In the light of the above order dated 24.4.2019, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's husband is similarly situated person and accordingly, he is entitled payment of back wages for the period from 01.09.2010 to 28.09.2013 for the services rendered by him as primary teacher. 35. As held supra, the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary manner and without applying the mind and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.10,24,802/- as calculated by the Director, Education (S) for the payment of back wages/salary of the service rendered by her husband with effect from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013. 36. In the result, (i) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.11.2018 issued by the Commissioner, Education (S), Government of Manipur is set aside. (ii) The respondent authorities are directed to release the entitled pay and allowances/back wages i.e. Rs.10,24,802/- as calculated by the Director, Education (S) to the petitioner for the services rendered by her deceased husband late H.Nishikanta Singh, an ad-hoc employee of the State Government, who died in harness while being utilized as a primary teacher under the Department of Education (S) during the period from 1.9.2010 to 28.9.2013. (iii) The said exercise is directed to be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) No costs.