IMPORTANT POINT
The importance of natural justice, the requirement of notice before termination, and the entitlement of employees to continue in service pursuant to valid extension orders.

JUDGMENT

1. This application has been filed by the applicant to vacate the ex parte interim order dated 18.1.2022 granted in W.P.(C) No.23 of 2022.

2. Heard N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, the learned senior counsel for the respondents 1 to 8/writ petitioners.

3. The applicant herein is the second respondent in the main writ petition.

4. The writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioners to quash the order dated 13.1.2022, whereby the Chairperson (in-charge) of the Manipur State Commission for Women ordered disengagement of the writ petitioners with immediate effect. When the writ petition was taken up for admission on 18.1.2022, this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, granted an interim order directing the respondents not to give effect of the impugned order dated 13.1.2022 till the next date and adjourned the writ petitioner to 22.2.2022 and the said interim order still continues.

5. Assailing the impugned order dated 18.1.2022 granted by this Court, Mr. N. Jotendro, the learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the extension order dated 3.9.2021 thereby extending the services of the writ petitioners with effect from 3.9.2021 to 3.9.2022 was issued by the former Chairperson of Manipur State Commission for Women, which is beyond the convention of the extension followed by the Commission as normally all consolidated staff, who are continuing in the Commission have been extended their services only for a period of six months and the present extension made by the former Chairperson is without the approval of the competent authority.

6. The learned senior counsel for the applicant further submitted that in fact the extension order dated 3.9.2021 was issued without following the instructions of the Government, including the Finance Department. He would submit that even the engagement order has not followed the instruction of the Government and such engagement of the writ petitioners in different nomenclature on daily wages in the Commission, who have been appointed by the former Chairperson have been directed to disengagement with immediate effect and accordingly, the same was communicated by a letter dated 10.1.2022. Thus, the impugned order dated 13.1.2022 was issued pursuant to the advice of the competent authority.

7. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the approval of the engagement of the writ petitioners is required from the Committee of Officers headed by the Chief Secretary and hence, there is no illegality in issuing the impugned order dated 13.1.2022. In fact, as per the Office Memorandum dated 4.3.2021, only the recruitment of daily wages, contract employment, muster roll, direct recruitment which have already been approved by the State Cabinet can only be continued and in the instant case, the petitioners were never approved by the State Cabinet and as such the Government took a decision to disengage them from their services. In view of the above, the interim order granted by this Court directing the respondents not to give effect on the impugned order dated 13.1.2022 is causing injury to the applicant and, therefore, the same is liable to be vacated.

8. Per contra, Mr. N. Jotendro, the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that this Court has rightly granted the interim order dated 18.1.2022 and there is no ground to vacate the same. Since the order dated 3.9.2021 stipulates extension of service from 3.9.2021 to 3.9.2022, the issuance of the impugned order dated 13.1.2022 is illegal. That apart, the order dated 13.1.2022 was issued without giving any notice to the writ petitioners and noting the aforesaid ground, this Court has rightly granted the interim order and the same cannot be vacated on the ground that the former Chairperson has wrongly engaged the services of the writ petitioners that too without following the guidelines of the State Government, as the said ground has no merits.

9. This Court considered th