Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1223 (GAU)

Vihokhe S/O Kughalu Sumi v. State of Nagaland

2025-07-31

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

body2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. S. Temjen for the petitioners and learned Senior Government Advocate Mr. Moa Imchen for all the respondents. 2. Through the writ petitions, the termination order of the petitioners have been challenged as the petitioners have been serving as work charged employees as follows:- Sl. No. Name Post Date of Appointment Order No. Pay WP(C) No. 1 Shri Vihokhe Chowkidar 24.05.2001 VET/ENGG/WC-4/2001-2002/21650-55 750/- 270 2 Shri Poangba Konyak Sectional Assistant 16.10.1996 VET/ENGG-35/96/97 1150/- 266 3 Smt. Mhonyani Tsopoe Peon 25.10.2010 VET/ENGG/WC-4/2010-11/376-81 800/- 267 4 Shri Longjie konyak Sectional Assistant 07.08.2023 VET/EE/23/2003-04/268-71 1150/- 268 5 Shri Rukuvotso Sothu Helper 05.09.1998 VETY/ENGG/WC-4/97-98/462-66 800/- 269 6 Smt. Imnukshila Aier Sectional Assistant 25.10.2010 VET/ENGG/WC-4/2010-11/388-93 1150/- 271 7 (i) Shri Moasunep, and (ii)Shri Nozochole “Labourer” 28.11.2014 VET/EST-3/DTE/IV/2014-15/4198-01 300/- 272 8 Shri Kiheto Sumi Mason 18.02.1997 VET/ENGG-55/96-97 400/- 273 9 Smt. ToiliSwu Mason 12.06.2013 VET/ENGG/WC-4/2013-14/121-26 900/- 274 10 Smt. Renbeni Mason Helper 18.11.2010 VET/EST-3/DTE/IV(E/WC) 800/- 275 11 Smt. Neivisanuo Nakhro Sectional Assistant 23.12.2012 VET/EST/DTE/WC/2012-13/2885-92 1150/- 276 12 Shri Nzothung Tsopoe Driver 25.10.2010 VET/ENGG/WC-4/2010-11/382-87 900/- 277 13 (i) Smt. Imsenla Jamir, (ii) Smt. Tusovelu and (iii) Smt. Ngangshikala Sectional Assistant 07.12.2018 VET/ENGG/WC-4/2018-19/PT-III/369-73 1150/- 278 14 Smt. Temjensungla Mason 23.10.2006 VET/ENGG/WC-4/2006-07/645-650 900/- 279 15 Smt. Moarenla Aier Mason Helper 27.11.2003 VET/EE/A-2/2003-04/399-404 800/- 280 Since their appointment, the petitioners have been serving the Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services with due diligence for at least 20 years or more. As the petitioners were unable to make both ends meet with their meager salaries, they approached the respondent authorities by way of representation dated 18.07.2022, but the petitioners representation evoked no response from the authorities. This impelled the petitioners to approach this Court by filing WP(C)/136/2023 wherein by another order dated 14.06.2024, the respondent authorities were directed to verify as to whether the petitioners have been discharging their duties from their date of appointment till date, and if after verification, it is found that the petitioners have been discharging their duties as work charged employees and they are entitled to their salaries/wages as claimed by them, their salaries/wages should be paid to them within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of this order. 3. 3. It is contended that on the strength of the order of this Court, the respondent authorities have paid salaries for only 22 months out of 46 months but the petitioner is aggrieved for non-receipt of salaries of the remaining 24 months. It is averred that instead of paying the remaining part of their salaries, the petitioners were terminated in violation of Rule 5 of the CCS(TS) RULES, 1965, vide order dated 09.08.2024 vide No.VET/LEGAL-1/2023-2024. 4. It is contended that the order has been illegally passed as no adverse remarks have been made against the petitioners during their tenure and as the petitioners were not allowed a scope for representation or explanation. The petitioners have been terminated with other work charged employees who have been regularized in other departments through OM No. AR-3/GEN-201/2009, Dated-Kohima, the 17th of March, 2015. Proper hearing was not accorded to the petitioners and the termination order was passed on 09.08.2024 whereas, the petitioners have received copies on 25.09.2024 and the petitioners have been terminated by the aforementioned order w.e.f. 01.01.2024. The Circular No. VET/LEGAL-1/2023-2024 clearly reflects that the Adhoc/Work- charge/Fixed pay employees in the department w.e.f. December 2020 up to September 2022 would receive the salary in 2 (two) installments but the petitioners have received only one installment of their backlog arrears. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted that the appointment order No. VET/ENGG-35/96/97, Dated Kohima, the 16th of October, 1996, clearly reflects that the appointment was for a period of 5 (five) months only under the respondent authorities and the appointment was purely temporary on work charge basis and can be terminated at any time without further notice. Thus, no illegality is discernable from the termination order as the appointment order clearly reflects the terms and conditions of termination. The petitioners can be terminated without any further notice and as the engagement of the petitioners was purely temporary, thus no clearance is required to be given by the District Level Verification Committee (DLVC) and the petitioners were not registered in Personal Information Management System (PIMS). The petitioners were well aware of their mode of engagement, and thereby at this stage, the petitioners cannot agitate against the termination order. They are barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel. 6. The petitioners were well aware of their mode of engagement, and thereby at this stage, the petitioners cannot agitate against the termination order. They are barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel. 6. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners appointments were temporary and salaries were paid at 2% work charge which was incorporated as per work estimate of the department till November 2020. However, the Government of Nagaland Planning & Coordination Department vide notification dated 16.12.2020 has stopped 13%of the departmental charges and 2% towards the work charge salary. This notification is marked as Annexure-A of the petition. 7. There is no illegality in the order of termination w.e.f. 01.01.2024 as the petitioners were discharging duties up to December 2023. It is further submitted that a chaotic situation will consequently result if the petitioners are to be reinstated as the coffers of the exchequer would succumb under the burden. 8. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 9. The petitioners have vehemently denied that they have discharged their duties only up to December 2023. Moreover, their termination order th VET/LEGAL-1/2023-2024 1569 dated Kohima, 9 August, 2024, is an order which clearly reflects that the petitioners were released from duty in terms of Rule 5 of CCS(TS) Rules, 1965. It is pertinent to mention that the order itself is violative of aforementioned rules. The order is marked as Annexure-5 of all the writ petitions. As the impugned order was passed based on Rule 5 of CCS(TS) Rules, 1965, the glaring violation of the Rules is evident. The Rule 5 mandates that atleast 1 (one) month’s notice has to be given to the employees in the event of any termination of their services. Here, in the instant cases, not a single employee was informed before the impugned order of termination was passed. The petitioners have devoted their entire life without any scar and have discharged their duties and they are entitled to scale of pay but in return they were rewarded with termination of their services. Here, in the instant cases, not a single employee was informed before the impugned order of termination was passed. The petitioners have devoted their entire life without any scar and have discharged their duties and they are entitled to scale of pay but in return they were rewarded with termination of their services. The petitioners have been discriminated and they have not been treated at par with other similarly circumstanced work charged and casual employees under the Government, as there has been scheme for regularization vide OM No. AR- 3/GEN-201/2009, (Annexure-6), which clearly indicates that “in respect of those work charged and casual employees in scale of pay and who have completed or who will complete 30 (Thirty) years of continuous service after 01.01.2015, their cases for regularization will be taken up st st subsequently in 2 (two) batches as on 1 July and 1 January every year. The procedures and terms and conditions will be the same as laid down in this OM”. 10. Learned Senior Government Advocate Mr. Moa Imchen has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned termination order and has relied on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Meghalaya in the case of Rramberco M. Marak vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors reported in 2017 (2) GLT (ML) 940, wherein it has been held that:- “20. Admittedly, an employee appointed on temporary basis is not governed by any service Rules and he is bound by the terms and conditions incorporated in the appointment letter It is a settled legal proposition that a person, whose appointment is purely contractual and temporary with the conditions unsatisfactory performance and misconduct of any kind, does not have a right to claim any relief, if his services are terminated in terms thereof, 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh &Anr Vs Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691 has categorically held as under: "6 Under the service jurisprudence a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated in accordance with the relevant service rules and the terms of contract of service…” 22. It is a settled law that a temporary employee has no right to hold the post as his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either in terms of the contract providing for such termination of under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants A similar question came up for consideration in the case of Ravindra Kumar Misra Vs UP State Handloom Corporation AIR 1987 SC 2408 Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors AIR 1992 SC 496 . Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow, UP & An Vs Prakash Chan-dra Saxena &Anr (1994) 5 SCC 17 Ram Chandra Tripathi Vs. UP Public Services Tribunal IV & Ors (1994) 5 SCC 180 and Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs Devendra Kumar Jain & Ors (1995) 1 SCC 638 and Kaushal Kishore Shukla (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right. 22. In the instant case, the appointment of the petitioner being purely contractual and temporary can be terminated by the respondents on unsatisfactory performance and misconduct.” 11. It is held in the case of Rramberco M. Marak (Supra), also that the employees are to be terminated in terms of the Service Rules and the Contract. In the instant case, the impugned order was passed in violation of Rule 5 of the CCS(TS) Rules, 1965, more so, when the rules were quoted in the impugned order dated 09.08.2024. The length of tenure of service of the petitioners cannot be ignored. They have extended their services to the Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary of the State of Nagaland for several years and some petitioners have worked continuously for 27 years. This Court can gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. P. Ahuja vs. The State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2000) 3 SCC 239 , relied by the respondents, wherein it has been held that:- “6. This Court can gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. P. Ahuja vs. The State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2000) 3 SCC 239 , relied by the respondents, wherein it has been held that:- “6. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the appellant after appointment, was placed on probation and though the period of probation was two years, his services could be terminated at any time during the period of probation without any notice, as set out in the appointment letter. It is contended that the appellant cannot claim any right on the post on which he was appointed and being on probation, his work and conduct was all along under scrutiny and since his work was not satisfactory, his services were terminated in terms of the conditions set out in the appointment order This plea cannot be accepted. 7. A probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a temporary servant as well as a probationer is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can his services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice. 13. In this instant case too, the petitioners were taken aback, as they have receive copies of the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 on 25.09.2024 and they were terminated w.e.f. 01.01.2024. The submission that the petitioners had no stigma and no scars while discharging their duties cannot be ignored. The fact that several work charged and casual employees have been regularized in other government offices resulting in the discrimination of the petitioners also cannot be ignored in toto. 14. The learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted that the impugned order cannot be considered in a hyper technical manner and the inclusion of the rules in the order is not a mistake of law but a technical error caused by the Department. The respondent authorities have no objection if the remaining part of the backlog arrear of salaries are paid to the petitioners but has reiterated that their reinstitution may cause heavy financial burden on the exchequer. 15. The respondent authorities have no objection if the remaining part of the backlog arrear of salaries are paid to the petitioners but has reiterated that their reinstitution may cause heavy financial burden on the exchequer. 15. I have also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. P. Ahuja (Supra). It is undoubtedly clear that the petitioners were not given 1 (one) month’s time as mandated by the CCS(TS) Rules when the order based on CCS Rules was passed. 16. Thereby, this Court deems it proper to set aside the order and the impugned order vide VET/LEGAL-1/2023-2024 1569 dated Kohima, 9th August, 2024, is set aside and quashed. Appropriate action by the respondent authorities as per due course of law may follow. 17. The respondent authorities are directed to pay the remaining backlog arrears of 24 months to the petitioners, within three months from the date of this order. 18. In terms of the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.