Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 139 (MAN)

N. Ranjit Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-07-27

AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Sh. Athoi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The only issued raised in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the regularization of his adhoc service w.e.f. 24-05-1986 as provided under the Office Memorandum dated 31-05-1986 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PD), Government of Manipur. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Village Level Worker (VLW) in the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Manipur on adhoc basis for a period of six months by an order dated 30-10-1984 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Manipur. It is the case of the petitioner that the period of his adhoc service were extended from time to time by the Government. While the petitioner was serving as a Village Level Worker on adhoc basis, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PD), Government of Manipur issued an Office Memorandum dated 31-05-1986 laying down the policy of the State Government for regularization on adhoc service. In the said Office Memorandum, it is, inter alia, laid down that all persons appointed on adhoc basis on or prior to 31-12-1984 to Class - III and IV posts against the vacancies of the direct recruit quota and who continued to hold their respective post on adhoc basis on 24-05-1986 and who fulfill all the requirements excepting age limit laid down under the relevant recruitment rules for appointment to such post may be regularized w.e.f. 24-05-1986 without a reference being made to the relevant Departmental Promotion Committees. 4. Even though the petitioner was eligible and qualified and entitled to the regularization of his adhoc service as per the Government policy provided under the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 31-05-1986, the respondents did not consider his case for such regularization, instead, the adhoc service of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 13-06-1986 by an order dated 13-06-1986 issued by the Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Manipur. 5. 5. On a representation being made by the petitioner for regularization of his adhoc service as provided under the Office Memorandum dated 31-05-1986, the concerned authorities of the State Government initiated the process for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his adhoc service and ultimately, the State Government conveyed its approval to the regularization of the adhoc appointment of the petitioner as VLW as provided under the said Office Memorandum dated 31-05-1986, vide letter dated 04-11-1997 of the Under Secretary (RD & PR), Government of Manipur. In pursuance of the said Government's approval, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Manipur issued an order dated 09-03-1998 regularizing the adhoc appointment of the petitioner as VLW only w.e.f. the date of issue of the said letter, i.e., 09-03-1998. 6. Having been not satisfied with the regularization of the petitioner's adhoc service only w.e.f. 09-03-1998, representation was submitted on behalf of the petitioner requesting the authorities for linking up the period of adhoc service of the petitioner from 13-06-1984 to 09-03-1998. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Manipur wrote two letters dated 24-07-2015 and 28-05-2018 to the Joint Secretary (RD & PR), Government of Manipur submitting recommendations for examining the claim of the petitioner for linking up the period of his adhoc service till the date of his regularization and also requesting to obtain a decision of the Government for further necessary action. However, the State Government failed to consider the claim of the petitioner despite the repeated recommendations made by the Director of Rural Development of Panchayati Raj, Manipur. Having been aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court for redressal of his grievance by filing the present writ petition. 7. Mr. Sh. Athoi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization of his adhoc service as Village Level Worker w.e.f. 24-05-1986 as provided under the Office Memorandum dated 31-05-1986. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that in respect of three Village Level Workers, viz. Shri M. Mangi Singh, Shri L. Gambhir Singh and Md. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that in respect of three Village Level Workers, viz. Shri M. Mangi Singh, Shri L. Gambhir Singh and Md. Juma Kha, who are similarly situated with the present petitioner, the State Government conveyed its approval to count the service of the said three Village Level Workers w.e.f. 24-05-1986 as per the aforesaid DPs Office Memorandum dated 31-05-1986, vide letters dated 03-07-2004 and 13-01-2005 of the Under Secretary (RD & PR), Government of Manipur. However, in the case of the petitioner, the State Government have refused to consider the claim of the petitioner and to regularize the adhoc service of the petitioner w.e.f. 24-05-1986 as provided under the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 31-05-1986 despite the legitimate claim made by the petitioner and repeated recommendations made by the Director of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Manipur. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been treated by the Government in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner and that the refusal of the State Government to regularize the adhoc service of the petitioner w.e.f. 24-05- 1986 have violated the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. The present wit petition was filed on 08-08-2019 and despite giving several opportunities to the respondents to file their counter affidavit and to contest the claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition in the last about three years, the respondents neither filed any counter affidavit nor contest or deny the claim of the petitioner made in the present writ petition. In such circumstances, this Court had to construe that the statements and claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition are all true and correct. Moreover, on careful examination of the record of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is quite eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization of his adhoc service w.e.f. 24-05-1986 as provided under the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 31-05-1986. The petitioner is also entitled to get the same benefit as are given to the aforementioned three Village Level Workers and denial of granting similar benefit to the petitioner will amount to violation of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 9. The petitioner is also entitled to get the same benefit as are given to the aforementioned three Village Level Workers and denial of granting similar benefit to the petitioner will amount to violation of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons given hereinabove, the present writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to regularize the adhoc service of the petitioner w.e.f. 24-05-1986 as provided under the Office Memorandum dated 31-05-1986 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PD), Government of Manipur within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. Parties are to bear their own costs.