RHANLAMO LOTHA Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dtd. 27/8/2018 passed by the Principal Director, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Nagaland by which, conditions have been attached pursuant to the order of reinstatement of the petitioners is the subject matter of challenge in these two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts stated in brief are that the petitioners, in these two cases, were appointed in the Department on various dates in different posts, the details of which are given below:]

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to such appointments, they were discharging their duties to the best of their abilities. However, in the year 2011, there was an inquiry on the aspect of appointment in the Health and Family Welfare Department and in that regard, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had issued a communication dtd. 14/10/2011 requesting the documents pertaining to such appointments. It is averred that all the original orders of appointment were duly furnished to the authorities and were verified. It is also averred that the petitioners had appeared before the authorities and had made their statements. Nevertheless, an order was passed on 30/4/2012 to withhold the salaries of the petitioners. It has been clarified that there are two categories involving such persons; the first category was where the appointments were suspected to be fraud and the other category was such appointments were made beyond the sanctioned strength. The petitioners belong to the first category. The aforesaid order dtd. 30/4/2012 was the subject matter of challenge in two writ petitions, namely, WP(C)/52(K)/2014 and WP(C)/61(K)/2014. Both the said two writ petitions were taken up for an analogous hearing and were disposed of by this Court vide an order dtd. 18/9/2014 whereby, it was directed that no adverse order was to be passed without giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and by holding an inquiry. After the aforesaid direction, some inquiry was held which culminated in an order dtd. 27/4/2015 whereby, the petitioners were dismissed from service. The ground cited in the aforesaid order of dismissal was that the appointments were fraudulently made. The said order of dismissal was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition instituted by the petitioners which was registered as WP(C)/157(K)/2015. The said writ petition was, however, allowed by this Court vide an order dtd. 25/10/2017 whereby, the dismissal orders were interfered with and accordingly set aside with a further direction for reinstatement of the petitioners. Consequently, an order dtd. 4/6/1018 was passed reinstating the petitioners. Thereafter the impugned order has been passed on 27/8/2018 whereby, two conditions have been attached, namely, that the incumbents would not be entitled to any back wages w.e.f. 28/4/2015 to 3/6/2018 and further, the aforesaid period would not be counted for qualifying service and for increment. It is the second condition which is the specific subject matter of challenge in these two writ petitions.