DISHINANG GOLMEI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the 3 (three) orders of termination dated 05. 08. 98 (to the writ petition) wherein and whereunder the service of the petitioners were terminated from the posts of Revenue Assistants, Fish Farm Assistant and Gear Assistant respectively.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Ch. Nikel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nepolean, learned GA appearing for the respondents.

(3.) THE facts, in a nutshell, require to be adjudicated upon in this writ petition are that: the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were initially appointed to officiate against the post of Revenue Assistant, Fish Farm Assistant and Gear Assistant in the scale of Rs. 520-20-660-EB-25-860-30-1010/- p. m. with usual allowances lying vacant in Fisheries Department, Manipur w. e. f. the date of joining duty until further orders vide orders dated 24. 04. 1986, 03. 03. 1986 and 15. 02. 1986 (Annexures- A/1, A/2 and A/3 to the writ petition) respectively, after they rendered continuous service for a period of three years, their services were terminated on 20th July, 1989 w. e. f. 21. 07. 1989 by a single common order on the ground that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed, either not existed or ceased to have existed. Admittedly, before issuance of the aforesaid termination order dated 20. 07. 1989, no notice to show cause was issued to the petitioners. The aforesaid termination orders were issued in respect of so many persons similarly appointed on officiating basis including the petitioners. On earlier occasion, petitioner No. 1 filed writ petition being C. R. No. 452 of 1993 challenging the aforesaid order of termination dated 20. 07. 1989 and similarly petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 also challenged the aforesaid termination order by filing another writ petition being CR No. 1031 of 1992. This Court in both the writ petitions relying the common Judgment and Order, passed in CR No. 811 of 1989 and batches, disposed of, the aforesaid two Civil Rules of the petitioners, setting aside the termination order and, directing the respondents therein to take back the petitioners, and also allowed the respondents to proceed with the matter after issuing proper show cause notice and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. But no back wages were allowed, so far, as the present petitioners are concerned, by this Court in its order dated 25. 05. 1993 in CR No. 452 of 1993 and order dated 26. 08. 1992 CR No. 1031 of 1992. The petitioners were taken back to their services and thereafter the respondents issued show cause notices to petitioner No. 1 on 11. 06. 1993, and to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on 16. 09. 1992 allowing 30 (thirty) days time to submit their replies. The petitioners also, accordingly, replied to the show cause notices in time. The Director, Fisheries, Manipur considered the replies submitted by the petitioners and disposed the said replies by passing necessary orders on 30. 07. 1994 vide Annexures- A/7, A/8 and A/9 to the writ petition respectively, wherein their prayer for regular appointments were rejected and thereafter on 05. 08. 1994 vide Annexures A/10, A/11 and A/12 to the writ petition, the service of the petitioners were terminated retaining some of the similarly situated persons. As aggrieved by the aforesaid termination orders dated 05. 08. 1994, the petitioners submitted representations before the Director, Fisheries, Manipur on 08. 12. 1997 and 22. 08. 1994 with a prayer for setting aside the orders of termination and to reinstate them in service. But getting no response from the Director, Fisheries, Manipur, the writ petitioners filed the present writ petition for quashing the orders of termination dated 05. 08. 1994 and also for a direction to reinstate them in their services to the posts of Revenue Assistant, Fish Farm Assistant and Gear Assistants in the Fisheries Department, Government of Manipur.