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
| 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
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 unsustaina....
A teacher's claim for salary during unauthorized absence must consider prior court rulings confirming her appointment rights.
The appointment of the petitioners was found to be irregular but not illegal. The State respondents were bound to consider the recommendation of the Special Class-III DPC, which was constituted on th....
The regularisation of ad-hoc service cannot be claimed as of right and is subject to fulfilling specific conditions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.