Shanganing Muivah v. State of Manipur and Another

Order

13.12.2024 [1]

Heard Mr. NG. Jotindra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned G.A. for the State respondent. [2]

The petitioner who was initially appointed as LDC in the Revenue Department, Manipur vide order dated 21.01.1991 for a period of 6 (six) months and his service was extended from time to time till 31.08.2010. [3]

Vide order dated 31.12.2013, the service of 28 ad-hoc LDC in the Revenue Department, Manipur were regularized with immediate effect and the name of the petitioner is shown at Serial No.

¶3Thereafter, the petitioner and others approached this Court by way of batch of writ petitions claiming for payment of due salaries. Vide order dated 14.12.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) Nos. 843 of 2021 & 684 of 2019 wherein the present petitioner is petitioner No. 3 in

Page 2

WP(C) No. 684 of 2019. This Court directed the respondents to re-verify the ad-hoc service of 120 employees and after that, pass appropriate order as prayed for. The relevant para 8 of the order dated

14.12.2021 is reproduced as: "8. Considering the averments made in the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 1 in WP(C) No. 684 of 2019 and also considering the fact that all DC's, DS&LR and Director (SLUB) have been requested for re-verification of the non-extended adhoc service of 120 employees where they claim that they have rendered their services, this writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing the respondents to proceed for reverification of the non-extended adhoc services period of the 7 petitioners and complete the same within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order. While doing so, the respondents shall also take into consideration the case of similarly situated persons whose ad hoc services were extended in respect of Civil Supply Inspectors under the Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution Department and also some employees of the Commerce & Industries Department by Orders dated 20-10-2015 and 16-042015. Thereafter, on the basis of the re-verification, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 1 (one) month thereafter. It also made clear that after the re-verification and if the petitioners are found to have been serving for the period from 01-09-2010 to 30-12-2013 their pay and allowances should be paid to the petitioners at the earliest."

[4]

Since the direction in the order dated 14.12.2021 has not been complied till date, the petitioner approached this Court by way of

Page 3

the present writ petition being WP(C) No. 974 of 2022 inter-alia praying for: "(i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to carry out/comply with the order dated 14.12.2021 (Annexure-A/11) of the Hon'ble High Court passed in writ petitions (C) No. 661 of 2009, WP(C) No. 947 of 2014 and WP(C) No. 684 of 2019 respectively forthwith.

(ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to link up his initial ad hoc service prior to his regularization i.e. from the date of his adhoc appointment till 30.12.2013 for counting as qualifying services for pensionary benefits and other retirement benefits only by paying the due pay and allowances of the petitioner for the period from 01.09.2010 to 30.12.2013 to the petitioner working a LDC in Revenue Department, Manipur as was done in case of the many similarly situated persons."

[5]

At this stage, Mr. NG. Jotindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he is pursuing prayer No. (i) only for complying the direction passed by this Court in the order dated 14.12.2021 and the petitioner be permitted to raise the remaining prayers in appropriate forum, if the need arises in future. [6]

Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned G.A. for the State respondent, submits that this Court may pass appropriate order in terms of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Page 4

[7]

This Court has considered the materials on record and the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is of the opinion that writ petition may be disposed of by giving a direction to the State respondent to comply the earlier directions in the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by this Court. [8]

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of by direction the State respondent to comply with the directions at para 8 of the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) Nos. 661 of 2009, 974 of 2014 & 684 of 2019 within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [9]

Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing for all the parties.

JUDGE

Kh. Joshua Maring

KH. JOSHUA MARING Date: 2024.12.16 17:24:39 +05'30'

Page 1 Item No. 26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL WP(C) No. 974 of 2022 Shanganing Muivah …..Petitioner/s - Versus – State of Manipur & Anr. .... Respondent/s BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA