IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of payment for ad-hoc service without proper verification and in contravention of previous court orders is arbitrary and unsustainable.

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. 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 r