STATE OF MANIPUR Vs. H SHAMU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These sixteen writ appeals have been preferred by the State of Manipur against the common judgment and order dated 9.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule Nos. 515 to 530 of 1988.

(2.) The facts as emerges from the contents of the writ petitions as well as the affidavits in opposition are as follows : The respondents/ writ petitioners alongwith others, numbering 28 persons, were appointed on ad hoc basis by the Government to various posts of Grade-Ill in the office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department (IFCD), Govt. of Manipur vide memorandum dated 18.12.84(Annexure-Ato the writ petition). Though the approval was made on 18.12.84 appointed orders were issued only in the month of January, February and March, 1985. The appointments were though made for six months initially, same were extended from time to tune. The Government formulated a policy vide its memorandum dated 31.5.86 for regularising all ad hoc appointees who were appointed upto 31.12.84 and who continued to hold their respective post on ad hoc basis on 24.5 86 .By another memorandum issued on 4.8 .86 it was ordered that all those ad hoc employees who could not be regularised under the scheme were taken to have already been discontinued from their ad hoc appointment with effect from 24.5.86. But the respondents were not regularised and their services were extended for more than two years thereafter, till they were terminated with effect from 5.9.98. The admitted fact is that a departmental promotion committee was held in 1985 for their regularisation, but the result of the same was not declared when similarly situated persons, who were appointed at the same time, were regularised by the DPC under the regularisation policy. While the respondents were terminated two of the Lower Division Clerks who were appointed alongwith the respondents (vide Annexure-A to C) were allowed to continue on ad hoc basis and nine of them were regularised after declaring the result of the DPC (Annexure -II). Both the orders of termination of services of the respondents and regularisation of those persons were issued on the same date (Annexure -B to D). Against this sixteen respondents filed sixteen writ petitions and the same were admitted but no interim order was granted. Writ petitioners preferred SLP before the Apex Court and the same was rejected directing the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions early.

(3.) While the writ petitions were pending the Government issued office memorandum dated 9.10.92 whereby decision was taken to regularise all those ad hoc employees who had completed five years of service as on 1.1.92. The two Lower Division Clerks who were appointed along with the petitioners (Annexure -C) and who were allowed to continue on ad hoc basis (Annexure -D) were regularised under the regularisation policy vide order dated 31.3.93. (Annexure -F). The respondents/writ petitioners could not be regularised as they were terminated and their writ petitions were pending. The learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated9.9.94 directed the respondents /writ appellants to consider the regularisation of the services of the writ petitioners in accordance with the Government policy issued vide office memorandum dated 31.5.86. Appellants preferred appeals and the same were allowed exparte without issuing notice to the respondents /writ petitioners. Against the respondents/writ petitioners approached the Apex Court and the writ appeals were remanded back to the High Court for fresh disposal.