IMPORTANT POINT
The regularisation of ad-hoc service cannot be claimed as of right and is subject to fulfilling specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

[1] Heard Shri Ng. Jotindra Luwang, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Athouba Khaidem, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

[2] The subject matter in issue relates to the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their ad-hoc services as the Lower Division Clerks in the Department of Command Area Development Authority, Government of Manipur.

[3.1] Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, in short, are that the petitioners were initially appointed as the Lower Division Clerks (for short, LDCs) on ad-hoc basis for a period of three months vide order dated 01-07-1999 issued by the Addl. Chief Engineer (CADA), Manipur and their ad-hoc services were extended from time to time. In the meantime, the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.872 of 2000 which was disposed on 17-07-2000 directing the authority to fill up the posts held by them on regular basis soon after the ban was lifted and to allow them to continue in their services till then. Thereafter, questioning the termination/ downsizing the posts held by the petitioners, they along with some other approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal bench by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.420 of 2001 which was disposed on 29-03-2001, the relevant portion of which read as under:

“Already there is an order passed on 8/8/2000 passed by this Court in W.P(C) No.1001 of 2000 and Annexure-A/6 (colly) whereby these petitioners were allowed to continue in service till the posts are filled up on regular basis within a period of one month from the date of lifting the ban.

It is clear that these petitioners shall not be thrown out from their services. Accordingly, the impugned Notification dated 19/3/2001 (Annexure-A/7) shall stand suspended. The petitioners shall be allowed to continue in their services and they shall be paid their salaries and allowances etc. in accordance with law.”

The services of the petitioners were continued to be utilized by the authority and in order to reply a question in the Assembly, the Addl. Chief Engineer (CADA), Manipur addressed a letter dated 30-07- 2003 to the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur informing that the posts held by them were not affected by the downsizing.

[3.2] In terms of the letters dated 29-09-2005 and dated 25-10-2005 issued by the DP, Government of Manipur, a utilization certificate dated 18-05-2006 was issued by the Account Officer of the Command Area Development Department, Manipur certifying that in compliance with the Court's order dated 29-03-2001, the staff of the department including the petitioners, were being utilized. In the meanwhile, a requisition notice dated 10-11-2005 was issued for filling up the four posts of LDC in CADA, Manipur. The petitioners along with two others jointly filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.679 of 2006 challenging it and also for considering their cases for regular appointment. The Hon’ble High Court disposed of it on 11-08-2006 directing that the State Respondents should take a conscious decision on their representation before finalizing the process for filing up the posts. Instead of considering their cases for regular appointment, a letter dated 11-04-2007 was sent by the Joint Secretary (CADA), Government of Manipur to the Addl. Chief Engineering (CADA), Manipur conveying the approval of the Government for discontinuation/ dispensing with the ad-hoc services of the petitioners as LDCs immediately. Contrary slightly to the aforesaid convey letter, the ad-hoc services of the petitioners as LDCs were discontinued retrospectively with effect from 18-12-2006 vide order dated 12-04-2007 of the Additional Chief Engineer, CADA, Manipur, followed by an order dated 11-09-2008 extending their past ad-hoc services till 18-12-2006.

[3.3] The petitioner No.1 approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.339 of 2009 challenging the te