SANAKHYA IBOTOMBI HAOROKCHAM Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy raised in this petition pertains to employment in a Corporation which arises in the following circumstances The petitioner, Shri Sanakhya Ebotombi Haorokcham, was initially appointed as casual Officer on Special Duty (OSD in short) (F) of the Manipur Film Development Council (MFDC in short) on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only per month for a period of three months by order dated 12.11.82. He was allowed to continue in the same capacity of course at a raised rate of salary till 1990. The services of the petitioner continued by means of extension granted from time to time and the last extension order was issued on 4.6.90 by the Managing Director, Manipur Film Development Corporation Ltd, which reads as follows:

(2.) The petitioner in this writ application stated that he possesses the general qualification of a Science graduate from the Gauhati University and engaged himself in acting and directing for a leading theatre group in Imphal. He joined the National School of Drama and completed his course in 1976 specialising in Direction. The petitioner has also narrated about his other qualifications like that of directing of Manipur Feature Films, etc. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to a fair treatment from the authority. That by the order dated. 12.11.82 under No. MFDC/ 16-EST/81-82, the petitioner was appointed as a casual OSD at a paltry amount of salary of Rs.500/- per month, which amount was raised to Rs. 1000/-. But instead of making any genuine endeavour for regularisation of his service or upgrading his service to a higher post, he was kept in a precarious position by retaining him in that fashion. The Corporation is a Government Corporation discharging public functions and owes a duty to act like a model employer, contended the learned senior counsel Mr Th Ibobi Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner had no choice on his appointment. He came to the institution because of bis love for the works involved and, therefore, he got himself involved in the activities of the Corporation and the Corporation utilised his services, but never made any genuine effort to improve his service career; instead, the Corporation showed him the door by snapping his term of appointment by not accepting his services beyond 31st July, 1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid order dated 4.6.90, issued by the MD, MFDC Ltd., was arbitrary, discriminatory and irrational.

(3.) The Corporation/respondent entered appearance and disputed the claim of the petitioner by way of submitting its affidavit. Mr N. Pramod Chandra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation, fairly produced all the records available and submitted that the petitioner was out and out a casual employee whose appointment itself was of casual nature. The learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner was not appointed against any regular vacancy; nor was his appointment pursuant to any notification/advertisement. The petitioner was appointed to the post-in- question as a stop-gap arrangement and accordingly, the services of the petitioner continued as a casual employee which was extended from time to time. That the petitioner continued in the department as a casual employee on the strength of extension orders and the authority, when on overall consideration found that there was no necessity for further such engagement/ appointment, the Corporation redeemed its right not to extend the service of the petitioner, more so when the institution was undergoing financial constraints.