Manipur High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Manipur Through The Addl. ... on 18 July, 2022
Author: M.V. Muralidaran
Bench: M.V. Muralidaran
Page |1
JOHN
TELEN KOM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Date:
WP(C) No. 2 of 2017
2022.08.18 1. Shri N. Apabi Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o N.
12:36:53 +05'30' Guno Singh, resident of Uripok Achom Leikai, P.O.
& P.S. Lamphel and District, Imphal West, Manipur.
2. Shri Th. Sadananda Singh, aged about 31 years,
S/o Th. Babu Singh, resident of Sagolband
Moiranghunaba, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel and
District Imphal West, Manipur.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur through the Addl. Chief
Secretary/Principal Secretary/Commissioner
(Vety.), Govt.of Manipur.
2. The Director (Vety. & A.H.), Government of
Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.
.... Official Respondents.
3. Rajkumar Shyamchandra Singh.
4. Laishram Jiten Singh
5. Thokchom Arunkumar Singh
6. Necoda Jajo
7. Kongrailakpam Sananu Sharma WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 Page |2
8. Sanasam Khelemba Singh
9. Kaitinpau Gangte
10. Md. Athat Khan
11. Hemam Birjitkumar Singh
12. Chinbiakgen
13. Nongmaithem Sanjoy Singh
14. Takhellambam Manitomba Singh
15. T.K. Chon ..... Private Respondents WP(C) No. 794 of 2016
1. Shri Th. Sadananda Singh, aged about 31 years, S/o Th. Babu Singh, resident of Sagolband Moiranghunaba, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel and District Imphal West, Manipur.
2. Shri N. Apabi Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o N. Guno Singh, resident of Uripok Achom Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel and District Imphal West, Manipur.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur through the Addl. Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Commissioner (Vety.), Govt. of Manipur.
2. The Director (Vety. & A.H.), Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.
.... Respondents.
WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 Page |3 WP(C) No. 61 of 2019
1. Shri Pavei Peter, aged about 31 years, S/o Low Doutaomei, resident of Purul Atongba, P.O. Maram, P.S. Mao, District, Senapati, Manipur- 795015.
2. D. Christopher, aged about 31 years, S/o Dashu, resident of Khabung Karong, P.O. Karong, P.S. Senapati, Manipur-795007.
3. W. Sunny Kumar, aged about 33 years, S/o W. Basanta, resident of Khurai Lamlong Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Lamlong, District Imphal East, Manipur- 795010.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary/Commissioner/Secretary (Vety.), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat North Block, Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
2. The Director of Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Services, Govt. of Manipur, Sanjenthong, Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
.... Respondents.
WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 Page |4 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Petitioners :: Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Adv.
For the Respondents :: Mr. Y. Ashang, GA.
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 09.06.2022
Date of Judgment & Order :: 18.07.2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
W.P.(C) No.794 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioners praying to set aside the notification dated 21.09.2016 with a further prayer to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners to the posts of driver as have been done in respect of other similarly situated incumbents.
2. W.P.(C) No.2 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioners [petitioners 3 and 2 in W.P. (C) No.794 of 2016] to set aside the impugned notification dated 29.11.2016 as the same is not sustainable and to direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners as has been done in the cases of other similarly situated incumbents.
3. W.P.(C) No.61 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioners, who are similar to the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.794 WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 Page |5 of 2016 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners to the post of drivers in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry, Government of Manipur.
4. Since the issue involved in all three writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
5. The common case of the petitioners is that on 7.8.2010, a notification was issued for filling up 8 posts of driver on contract basis in the Directorate of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Manipur. On 8.9.2010, the petitioners were engaged on contract basis as drivers pursuant to the recommendation by the screening committee and on 9.9.2010, the petitioners were attached at the office of the Central Dairy Plant, Porompat by the order of the Director. By the order dated 18.10.2011, the Government re-engaged/extended the contractual services of the petitioners from 10.9.2011 to 28.02.2012. Similar extensions/re-engagements were given by the Government to the petitioners with effect from 2.3.2012 to 28.2.2013; 2.3.2013 to 28.2.2014; 2.3.2014 to 28.2.2015 respectively.
WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 Page |6
6. Further case of the petitioners is that on 29.6.2015, the contractual services of 6 incumbents serving in the General Administration Department were regularized in pursuance of the decision of the State Cabinet with concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Finance Department. In this regard, on 3.9.2016, a representation was submitted to the Director, Veterinary and Animal Husbandry by the General Secretary of All Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services Contract Employees Association to regularize the contract employees serving in the said department. On 21.9.2016, the Government approved extension of the contractual services of the petitioners with effect from 2.3.2015 to 29.2.2016. While so, on 21.9.2016, the Director had issued a notification for filling up of 13 posts of driver on regular basis from the open competition. Similar notifications were also issued by the Director for filling up of various posts in the Directorate on regular basis from open competition without considering the cases of the contractual employees who are long sufferers.
7. According to the petitioners, aggrieved by the notifications, three incumbents, who are serving as Milk Recorder approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.710 of 2016 WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 Page |7 challenging the validity of the advertisement/recruitment process with a prayer to regularize the services as has been done in respect of other incumbents serving in other departments under the Government of Manipur. In the said writ petition, this Court granted an interim order whereby a direction was given to the respondents not to make any appointment against the posts held by the petitioners till the disposal of the said writ petition.
8. According to the petitioners, they have been serving as drivers on contract basis for a long by enjoying a meagre amount of salary. However, the respondent authorities, instead of considering to regularize their services, have taken steps to fill up the posts which is being held by them on regular basis from open competition. Such action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.
9. It is also the case of the petitioners that aggrieved by the notification dated 21.9.2016, two other incumbents have filed W.P.(C) No.794 of 2016, wherein also this Court while issuing notice passed an interim order not to fill up four posts of drivers without the leave of the Court. Despite having knowledge of the above said orders, the Director had issued the impugned notification dated 29.11.2016 whereby the result of the recruitment WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 Page |8 which was initiated in pursuance to the above said advertisement dated 21.9.2016 was declared and accordingly the private respondents were selected for appointment to the post of drivers in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services, Manipur. Challenging the said notification dated 29.11.2016, the petitioners have W.P.(C) Nos.2 of 2017.
10. The further case of the petitioners, particularly, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.61 of 2019 is that on 23.12.2016, the Director issued an order whereby regularizing 14 incumbents who were serving as LDC-cum-Computer Assistant in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry on contract basis were regularized with time scale of pay and posted in different places. Similarly, on 22.4.2017, the Director issued an order whereby 3 incumbents who were serving as Milk Recorders in the same Department on contract basis were regularized to their respective posts in the time scale of pay. On the same date i.e. on 22.4.2017, nine incumbents who were serving as LDC-cum-Computer Assistant were regularized to their respective posts. According to the petitioners, on 25.10.2018, the Under Secretary (Veterinary) addressed a letter to the Director seeking approval for re- engage/extend the service of 7 contractual drivers, wherein the WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 Page |9 name of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.61 of 2019 appeared at Serial Nos.2, 3 and 5.
11. According to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.61 of 2019, the aforesaid 26 incumbents whose services were regularized on 23.12.2016 and 22.4.2017 are very much similarly situated with them the reason that when their services were extended by issuing necessary orders as well as when the Government conveyed its approval for extension of their services, the names of the petitioners were reflected along with 26 incumbents whose services were regularized by the aforesaid three orders on 23.12.2016 and 22.4.2017 respectively.
12. The respondents 1 and 2 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the Government is ready to consider the case of contract employees, including the petitioners, if they had applied for the appointment to the post concerned. When the petitioners failed to apply for appointment to the post concerned, they willingly excluded themselves from being considered. The petitioners cannot claim any right to be considered for regularization of their engagement, as they were engaged on contract basis purely on temporary basis after they entered into an agreement with the Department. The term of their engagement is that they will not WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 10 claim any appointment on regular basis or regularization of their contract engagement.
13. It is stated that there were 20 vacant posts of drivers in the Department and the Government's approval was conveyed for filling up only 13 vacant posts of drivers by direct recruitment and accordingly the Director had issued impugned notification dated 29.11.2016 announcing selection of 13 candidates for appointment as drivers. There are still 7 vacancies exist at the time of issuance of the impugned notification. The direction of this Court is not to fill up 4 posts of drivers, however, the Government has kept 7 posts of drivers unfilled. Therefore, there is no violation in the order of this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
14. Assailing the impugned notification, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were appointed to the sanctioned post of drivers on contract basis pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department and based on the recommendation of the screening committee dated 3.9.2010, they were selected on 7.9.2010 and are continuing in service till today. He would submit that while the other contract employees of the State Government in other departments, who WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 11 are similarly situated have been regularized, the case of the petitioners, has not been considered for regularization, instead a notification declaring the result of the private respondents was issued on 29.11.2016 for appointment to the post of drivers.
15. The learned counsel further submitted that earlier the petitioners and two others have challenged the notification dated 21.9.2016 by filing W.P.(C) No.794 of 2016, wherein this Court granted interim order to the effect not to fill up four posts of drivers without leave of the Court. Thus, as on today, the posts meant for the petitioners have not been filled up.
16. Drawing attention of the Court to the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.710 of 2016, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the similarly situated contract employees who are serving as Milk Recorder have filed the above said writ petition challenging the legality of the advertisement with a prayer to regularize their services. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondents not to make any appointment against the posts held by the petitioners therein and the said order is still in existence. WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 12
17. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners are serving as drivers on contract basis for the last more than 12 years by receiving a meagre salary. However, instead of considering to regularize their services, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned notification appointing the private respondents to the posts of drivers. The learned counsel submitted that without enacting an appropriate legislation, the executive or the legislature cannot set at naught a judicial order. The impugned notification has been issued despite having a clear knowledge of the order of this Court and, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and, accordingly, prays for quashing of the impugned notification.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioners added that when the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.61 of 2019 were engaged as drivers on contract basis vide order dated 9.9.2010, the 26 incumbents whose services were regularized by the orders dated 23.12.2016 and 22.4.2017 respectively were not entered into service on contract basis or on any capacity. In fact, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.61 of 2019 are seniors to the aforesaid 26 incumbents. Without giving any justifiable reason, the respondent authorities failed to regularize the services of the WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 13 petitioners. Therefore, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners as have been done in respect of 26 incumbents.
19. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners as of right cannot claim regularization on the ground that they are similarly situated contract employees of other departments and that regularization of contract employees as a normal or routine course of action can result in appointment being given through the back door and should not be encouraged.
20. The learned Government Advocate urged that since the petitioners have executed agreements not to claim regularization, they are prohibited from seeking regularization as a matter of right. The Government approved only 13 posts of drivers by direct recruitment and by the impugned notification dated 29.11.2016 an announcement was made for selection of 13 candidates for appointment as drivers and still there are seven posts of drivers exist though this Court directed to kept four posts of drivers. Therefore, there is no violation of the interim order passed by this Court.
WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 14
21. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the respondent State ready to consider the case of the contract employees, including the petitioners, provided they applied for the appointment to the post concerned. In the case on hand, the petitioners have failed to apply for appointment to the post of driver pursuant to the advertisement. Hence, the petitioners have no right to claim regularization on the ground that they are similarly situated contract employees of other departments.
22. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
23. The grievance of the petitioners is that the guarantee of equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realms of State action. It would extend not only when an individual is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of their right or in the matter of imposing liabilities upon them, but also in the matter of granting privileges etc. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all persons in similar circumstances shall be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities imposed.
WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 15
24. The selection and appointment of the petitioners as drivers in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry has not been disputed by the respondents. The respondents have also admitted that the petitioners were serving in the department on contract basis since 9.9.2010. It is also the say of the petitioners that they are serving as drivers on contract basis for the last 12 years and instead of considering to regularize their services, leaving the petitioners, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned notification dated 29.11.2016 appointing the private respondents as drivers.
25. It appears that earlier aggrieved by the advertisement dated 21.9.2016, the petitioners and two others have filed W.P.(C) No.794 of 2016 and, this Court, by the order dated 7.10.2016, passed the following order:
"Heard Mr.Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.Y. Ashang, learned G.A. for the respondents.
Petitioners claim that they have been appointed as Drivers in the Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Manipur since 2010 on contract basis on the recommendation of the screening committee WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 16 vide order dated 8.9.2010. However, the authorities are proceeding to fill up 6 (six) Contract Grade-IV employees in the Manipur Secretariat on regular basis.
It has been submitted by Mr. Kh.
Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners that contractual employees who are similarly situated persons as the petitioners have been regularized as evident from the order dated 29th June 2016 issued by the Deputy Secretary (GAD), Govt. of Manipur. Mr. Tarunkumar further submits that not only in GAD but also in the Directorate of Information Technology and Communication, Govt. of Manipur, 13 (thirteen) contract employees have been regularized.
However, in respect of the petitioners, the authorities are proceeding to fill up the posts of drivers advertised vide Notification dated 21.09.2016.
Interim prayer will be considered on the next returnable date.
In the meantime, till the next returnable date, let 4 (four) posts of drivers be not filled up without leave of this Court.
List the matter again on 11.11.2016."
WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 17
26. Admittedly, the said interim order is continuing and the petitioners are also working as such. As against the said interim order, the respondent authorities have not filed any appeal or filed petition for vacation of the interim order. On the other hand, the respondent State kept 7 posts vacant and had issued the impugned notification dated 29.11.2016 appointing the private respondents to the post of drivers.
27. The challenge made by the petitioners to the impugned notification dated 29.11.2016 is on the ground that without considering the case of the petitioners, the respondents have issued the impugned notification and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Further, the challenge is also on the ground that ignoring the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.794 of 2016, the impugned notification dated 29.11.2016 has been issued. W.P.(C) No.61 of 2019 has been filed seeking to regularize the services of the petitioners therein to the post of drivers stating that they are seniors to the 26 incumbents. However, the respondent authorities failed to regularize the services without any justifiable reason.
28. As could be seen from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 and according to learned Government WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 18 Advocate, not only four posts of drivers kept vacant pursuant to the interim order of this Court earlier passed, but the respondent State kept 7 posts of drivers unfilled. Thus, there is no violation of the interim order as alleged by the petitioners. The only objection raised by the respondent State is that since petitioners failed to apply for the post pursuant to the advertisement, they have no right to claim regularization.
29. The appointment pursuant to the advertisement/notification and the claim of contract employees seeking regularization are two different considerations. As far as the challenge made to the impugned notification dated 29.11.2016 is concerned, in view of the 4 posts of drivers kept vacant, the petitioners have no grievance over it. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to question the entire notification dated 29.11.2016, whereby the respondent authorities appointed the respondents 3 to 15.
30. However, the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to seek regularization. In their affidavit, the respondent State stated that they are ready to consider the case of the contract employees, including the petitioners for regularisation. However, the petitioners have failed to apply for WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 19 the post. The failure on the part of the petitioners in not applying the post pursuant to the advertisement for appointment to the post concerned is not a ground to deny the claim of the petitioners, in view of their initial engagement by due process.
31. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 23 incumbents, who belongs to the Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Department and who were engaged as LDC cum Computer Assistant and Milk Recorder only in the year 2012 were regularized in the month of December, 2016 and April, 2017 respectively. That apart, 3 other incumbents who were also engaged as Milk Recorder in the Department only in the year 2012 were also regularized on 22.4.2017 by the Director. Altogether, by way of three orders dated 23.12.2016 and 22.04.2017 respectively, the services of the 26 incumbents were regularized. However, in the case of the petitioners, the respondent authorities failed to regularize them.
32. The respondent State admitted that since 9.9.2010, the petitioners are working as drivers on contract basis. However, the respondent State disputed regularization of contract employees. According to the learned Government Advocate, the engagement of the petitioners is purely on contract basis and in WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 20 fact an agreement was executed by the petitioners with the Department that they will not claim any appointment on regular basis or regularization of their contract engagement.
33. On a perusal of the agreements, this Court finds that a cyclostyle conditions are stated in the agreements and that will alone not a ground to deny regularisation. When the other similarly situated persons have been regularized, denial of the said benefit to the petitioners would affect equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
34. Article 14 of the Constitution of India states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The first part of Article 14 is a declaration of equality of civil rights for all purposes within the territory of India and basic principles of republicanism and there will be no discrimination. The guarantee of equal protection embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extend not only when an individual is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of his right or in the matter of imposing liabilities upon him, but also in the matter of granting privileges etc. In all these cases, the principle is that same, viz., that there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 21 regards the subject matter of the legislation their position is the same. All persons in similar circumstances shall be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities imposed.
35. As stated supra, the respondent State is unable to give any justifiable reason, how they regularized the services of 26 incumbents who were engaged in the year 2012 in the same Department. Whereas the petitioners' engagement was of the year 2010. Such action of the respondent authorities admittedly discriminatory and in violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
36. Law is well settled that at the time of granting benefits including giving employment, all the similarly situated persons shall be treated equally by granting the same benefit. Since the initial engagement of 26 incumbents was also on contract basis by executing agreement that they will not claim regularization, how, bypassing the said agreement clause, the respondent authorities regularized the services of 26 incumbents. When the similarly placed persons have been given the benefit, a similar treatment must also be extended to the petitioners, as they are very much similarly situated with the aforesaid 26 incumbents. WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 22
37. In Amrendra Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2014) 4 SCC 583, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"43. As to what would constitute an irregular appointment is no longer re integra. The decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, has examined that question and explained the principle regarding regularization as enunciated in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1. The decision in that case summed up the following three essentials for regularization:
(1) the employees have worked for ten years or more, (2) that they have so worked in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal, and (3) they should have possessed the minimum qualification stipulated for the appointment. Subject to these three requirements being satisfied, even if the appointment process did not involve open competitive selection, the appointment would be treated irregular and not illegal and thereby qualify for regularization. Para 7 in this regard is apposite and may be extracted at this stage: (M.S.Kesari case) "7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularisation' enunciated in Umadevi (3), if the following conditions are fulfilled:
WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 23
(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular.
Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the persons employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular."
38. In the instant case, the engagement/appointment of the petitioners is not illegal or irregular. They have been engaged WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 24 pursuant to the advertisement/notification and a decision of the screening committee. The contract engagement of the petitioners was extended by the respondent State from time to time, which fact was not disputed by the respondent State. From the year 2010, the petitioners are working as drivers and their continuance is not under the protection of interim order of this Court. The interim order referred earlier is from 2016 directing the respondent State to keep four driver posts kept vacant. Before that from 2010, the petitioners are working as drivers. Therefore, the interim order dated 7.10.2016 will not affect the claim of the petitioners.
39. Coming to the qualifications for the post, there is no denial by the respondent authorities that the qualifications of the petitioners are not upto the requirements. Only after ascertaining the qualifications possessed by the petitioners, the respondent State engaged them as drivers. In such view of the matter, there is no quarrel over the qualifications possessed by the petitioners. Since the petitioners are working as drivers for the past 12 years on contract basis and considering their long period of service, this Court is of the view that they are entitled to regularisation as drivers.
WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 25
40. The respondent State having taken a policy decision to regularize the services of the similarly situated persons, they must extend that policy decision fairly and uniformly to all similarly situated and nobody should be discriminated. However, in the case on hand, the petitioners have been discriminated by not extending the policy decision despite having utilized the services of the petitioners from 9.9.2010. Nothing has been produced to show that the services of the petitioners discontinued. Therefore, it is to be held that the petitioners served in the Veterinary and Animal Husbandry from 9.9.2010 and are entitled to get the relief of regularization. As stated supra, the respondent State is ready to consider the case of the petitioners and also according to the respondent State, 7 posts are lying vacant.
41. In such of the view of the matter, nothing prevented the respondent State in regularizing the services of the petitioners taking note of their long continuous service as contract employees engaged after following the due process of law.
42. It is not the case of the respondent State that it had not earlier regularized the services of the contract employees. On the other hand, the petitioners have produced the order dated 29.6.2016 to show that the contractual services of 6 incumbents WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 26 serving in the General Administration Department were regularized in pursuance of the decision taken by the State Cabinet. This Court perused the order dated 29.6.2016 and find that the Deputy Secretary (GAD), Government of Manipur issued order regularizing the services of 6 contract Grade-IV employees in the Manipur Secretariat in the post of Grade-IV in order of seniority in the pay band of Rs.4400-7440/- plus GP Rs.1300/- along with one-time age relaxation, wherever applicable with immediate effect. Nothing has been produced by the respondent State to show that such benefit cannot be extended in the case of the petitioners. As stated supra, considering their long continuance in the post as drivers in the Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry, the petitioners are entitled for regularization.
43. Admittedly, nothing has been produced by the respondent State to show that the petitioners have no right to claim any right be considered for regularization of their engagement. Though their engagement is purely on temporary, when similarly situated persons have been given the benefit of regularization, the same ought to have been extended to the petitioners also and, WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 27 accordingly, this Court finds that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their service.
44. In view of 7 posts of drivers kept vacant (4 posts pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.794 of 2016 and 3 posts by the official respondents themselves), the petitioners in no way affected by the impugned notification dated 29.11.2016 thereby appointing the private respondents 3 to 15 in W.P.(C) No.2 of 2017 to the posts of drivers.
45. For the foregoing discussions and the finding arrived at by this Court in the earlier paragraphs that the petitioners are entitled for regularization, no prejudice would be caused either to the official respondents or the private respondents if a direction is given on the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization as has been done in the other similarly situated persons. On the other hand, if the claim of the petitioners is not considered and accepted, they would be put to irreparable loss and also hardship.
46. In the result,
(i) W.P.(C) Nos.794 of 2016 is dismissed and W.P.(C) Nos. 2 of 2017 and 61 of 2019 are disposed of.
WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019 P a g e | 28
(ii) The official respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners as has been done in respect of other similarly situated incumbents.
(iii) The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) In view of 7 posts of drivers kept vacant ( 4 posts pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.794 of 2016 and 3 posts by the official respondents themselves), the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same in the case of the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.2 of 2017 and 61 of 2019.
(v) No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WP(C) No. 2 of 2017, WP(C) No. 794 of 2016, and WP(C) No. 61 of 2019