Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J.
John Hauzel & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 721 of 2020 with WP(C) No. 679 of 2020
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Ad-hoc Services - Pensionary Benefits - O.M. dated 03.10.2013 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to count their ad-hoc services as qualifying for pensionary and retiral benefits. The government initially allowed this but later issued an order rejecting their claim and cancelling the earlier order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that similar cases had been allowed by the Guwahati High Court and that the government had already granted similar benefits to other employees. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to the same benefits and that denial of such benefits would violate the equality clause under the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners' ad-hoc services could be counted as qualifying for pensionary benefits despite the government's initial allowance and subsequent rejection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments allowing similar claims and held that the petitioners were entitled to the same benefits. The court also emphasized that denial of such benefits would violate the equality clause under the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned order, and directed the respondents to grant the petitioners the benefit of counting their ad-hoc services as qualifying for pension and other retiral benefits.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Ng. Jotindra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 721 of 2020, Mrs. G. Pushpa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 679 of 2020 and Mr. A. Vashum, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.
2. WP(C) No. 721 of 2020 had been filed by 9 (nine) petitioners with a prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 23.10.2020 and for directing the respondents to count the period of the petitioners ad-hoc services prior to their regularisation as qualifying services for the purpose of availing pensionary and other retiral benefits. WP(C) No. 679 of 2020 had been filed by the wife of (L) Y. Hembabu Singh, who was serving as Supervisory (Credit) on regular basis in the Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Manipur, with a prayer for directing the respondents to count the period of ad-hoc service rendered by her late husband prior to his regular appointment for the purpose of availing pensionary and other retiral benefits. As the facts and issues raised in the present 2 (two) writ petitions are common and interlinked, the said 2 (two) writ petitions were heard jointly and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. In WP(C) No. 721 of 2020, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were initially appointed as Extension Officer (Industry) on 05.04.1999 on ad-hoc basis in the Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Manipur for a period of 3 (three) months. Petitioner No. 3 was initially appointed as Progress Assistant on 05.04.1999 on ad-hoc basis in the Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Manipur for a period of 3 (three) months. Petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 were initially appointed as Inspectors (Statistics) on 05.04.1999 on ad-hoc basis in the Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Manipur for a period of 3 (three) months. Petitioner No. 6 was initially appointed as Inspector (SSI) on 03.12.1991 on ad-hoc basis in the Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Manipur for a period of 6 (six) months. Petitioner no. 7 was initially appointed as Supervisor (Infra) on 05.04.1999 on ad-hoc basis in the Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Manipur for a period of 3 (three) months. Petitioner No. 8 was initially appointed as Inspector (Planning & Survey) on 05.04.1999 on ad-hoc basis in the Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Manipur for a period of 3 (three) months and petitioner No. 9 was initially appointed as LDC on 30.12.1997 on ad-hoc basis in the Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Manipur for a period of 3 (three) months.
4. In WP(C) No. 679 of 2020, the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Village Industries Organizer on 05.04.1999 on ad-hoc basis for a period of 3 (three) months and the period of ad-hoc service was extended from time to time without any break. Subsequently, the ad-hoc service of the petitioner's husband was adjusted to the post of Supervisor (Infra) by an order dated 07.01.2020.
The ad-hoc services of all the petitioners in WP(C) No. 721 of 2020 and the ad-hoc service of the husband of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 697 of 2020 were extended from time to time by the Government and they continued to serve on ad-hoc basis in their respective capacity without any break till the date of regularization of their ad-hoc services.
5. While all the aforesaid petitioners were serving in different capacities in the Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Manipur, the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division), Government of Manipur issued an office memorandum dated 03.10.2013 laying down the policy of the government for regularization of the ad-hoc service in respect of 288 (two hundred eighty eight) direct recruit ad-hoc employees of various Government Departments/Offices. In the said regularization policy, it is inter-alia laid down that the ad-hoc services of 288 (two hundred eighty eight) direct recruit ad-hoc employees who w
The main legal point established in the judgment is that denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioners would violate the equality clause under the Constitution of India.
The regularisation of ad-hoc service cannot be claimed as of right and is subject to fulfilling specific conditions.
The court held that ad-hoc service cannot be counted as qualifying for pension benefits under the New Pension Scheme, as the initial appointments were not made per the relevant rules.
Ad hoc service followed by regularization counts as qualifying service for pension and gratuity under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 13, preventing discriminatory exclusion of prior service.
Once it is settled that the ad hoc service, which has been made basis of regularization, has been considered in catena of judgments and it has been held that the same is countable for reckoning the q....
Long-term adhoc employees have a right to regularization and benefits, as arbitrary continuation of their engagement undermines fairness and violates constitutional principles of employment.
petitioner has rendered qualifying pensionery service with effect from the date of his initial joining in the department in question, so the same shall be treated as service qualifying for pension an....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
