SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Manipur) 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH, J.

Shri Potsangbam Ranjana Devi, W/o. Th. Ibochou Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner/Secretary/Principal Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 726 of 2019
Decided On : 10-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. L. Raju, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Vashum, Govt. Adv.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Writ jurisdiction - The petitioner, who served as Craft Instructor for an extended period on an ad-hoc basis, is entitled to her pay and allowances despite an impugned order denying her service extension and remuneration from 01-04-2001 to 29-12-2016. The court found discrimination against the petitioner as she continued in service without formal extension, while others received benefits. The authorities' failure to provide reasons for her exclusion during service extensions was deemed unlawful. (Paras 1-19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner served as a Craft Instructor on an ad-hoc basis and was denied payment for her services from April 2001 despite verification reports confirming her continuous service. Previous courts directed authorities to assess her service claims, yet no action was taken.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming her right to compensation for services rendered without pay and directed the extension of her ad-hoc service and disbursement of her dues within two months.

Issues: Whether the denial of extension of ad-hoc service and wage payment violated the principles of equality and fair treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court observed that the authorities could not disadvantage the petitioner after benefiting from her continued service, thereby creating a situation of discrimination against her in violation of constitutional provisions.

Result: The impugned order was quashed; the petitioner entitled to back pay and service recognition.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's service history and claims (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments regarding wrongful denial of payments (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's observation on service continuity (Para 13 , 14 , 16)
4. discrimination against petitioner vs. others (Para 15 , 17 , 18)
5. court's ruling favoring the petitioner (Para 19)

JUDGMENT :

(Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J.) :

[1] Heard Mr. L. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

[2] The present writ petition had been filed with the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 30-06-2017 issued by the Principal Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of her pay and allowances for the period from 01-04-2001 till 29-12-2016 coupled with the prayer for directing the respondents to release the petitioner’s pay and allowances for the period from 01-04-2001 till 29-12-2016 within a stipulated period.

[3] The brief facts of the present case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Craft Instructor (Pottery) in the Directorate of Education (S), Government of Manipur on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months by an order dated 01-07-1998 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. The period of ad-hoc service of the petitioner was extended from time to time till 31-03-2001 by issuing various orders with the approval of the Government. It is to be pointed out here that the extension of the period of ad-hoc service of the petitioner was done ex-post facto, for example, the ad-hoc service of the petitioner for the period from 01-04-1999 to 30-09-1999 was extended by issuing an order only on 06-12-2005 by the Commissioner of Education(S), Government of Manipur. So also the ad-hoc service of the petitioner for the period from 01-10-1999 to 31-03-2000, 01-04-2000 to 30-09-2000 and 01-10-2000 to 31-03-2001 was extended ex-post facto by issuing orders dated 04-08-2006, 20-10-2006 and 10-01-2007 respectively by the Commissioner of Education (S), Government of Manipur.

[4] When the ad-hoc service of the petitioner was not extended after 31-03-2001 and as the service of the petitioner was utilized by the Government, the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II wrote a letter dated 22-09-2008 to the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur requesting the latter for extending the ad-hoc service of the petitioner w.e.f. 01-04-2001 to 31-12-2008 and for payment of her back-wages/ salary. When the Government failed to extend the ad-hoc service of the petitioner and to release her back-wages/salary, the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II again wrote a letter dated 09-07-2010 addressed to the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur with the request for extension of the ad-hoc service of the petitioner w.e.f. 01-04-2001 till the date of the said letter.

[5] On 14-02-2011, the Additional Director of Education (S/V) wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Education (S), Government of Manipur, requesting for extension of the ad-hoc service of the petitioner w.e.f. 01-04-2001 till the date of the said letter. In response to the said letter dated 14-02-2011, the Deputy Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur wrote a letter dated 24-03-2011 requesting the Additional Director of Education (S/V) to submit certain information in connection with the proposal for extension of the ad-hoc service of the petitioner. In response to this letter, the Additional Director of Education (S/V) wrote a letter dated 21-04-2011 to the Deputy Secretary, Education (S) stating, inter alia, that there are only ten ad-hoc employees, including the present petitioner, whose ad-hoc service have not been extended and that the period of their ad-hoc service to be extended varies as per their last date of extension. In the said letter, the Additional Director of Education (S/V) also made a request for extension of the term of ad-hoc service

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top