Honey Chara vs State Of Manipur & 3 Ors.

Heard Mr. BR Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Athouba Kh., learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and

Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is presently holding the post of Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) Manipur on regular basis and presently she

is the senior most incumbent in the Grade of Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) Manipur. The private respondent No. 4 was also earlier holding the post of

Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) Manipur on regular basis and she was allowed to function as in charge Director of (Hort. & SC). Subsequently, the

respondent No. 4 retired from service w.e.f. 31.10.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, the State Government engaged the

respondent No. 4 as Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) and in-charge Director (Hort. & SC) on contract basis after she have retired from service on

attaining the age of superannuation.

Having been aggrieved by the said engagement of the respondent No. 4, the present writ petition has been filed assigning the contract engagement of

the private respondent No. 4. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that such engagement of the private respondent No. 4 as Addl.

Director (Hort. & SC) and in-charge Director (Hort. & SC) on contract basis after her retirement is ultra-vires the provisions of FR 56 (d) as well as

the larger policy of the State Government as contained in Government’s orders dated 20.04.2000 and 11.05.2017, wherein, the Government has

prohibited any extension of service/re-employment after retirement from service.

The learned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by this Court by holding that such

engagement of an incumbent on contract basis after his retirement is contrary to the provisions under FR 56 (d) and such contract engagement is

illegal. It has been submitted that such order of this Court has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

In this view of the matter, it has been urged by the learned counsel that the engagement of the respondent No. 4 on contract basis is not sustainable

and accordingly, it needs to be stayed during the pendency of this writ petition.

Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 vehemently submitted that the petitioner is not at all eligible for promotion to

the post of Director (Hort. & SC) as she has not got the requisite qualifying service as prescribed under the relevant recruitment rules and accordingly

she has no locus to challenge the engagement of the private respondent No. 4.

It is also been submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the shortage of man-power in the Department, the State Cabinet has taken a conscious

decision to engage the respondent No. 4 on contract basis after her retirement due to the exigency of the work and in the public interest and therefore

no interference is called for from this Court with regard to the engagement of the respondent No. 4 on contract basis.

Mr. Athouba Kh., learned GA, also submitted in similar lines as has been advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the legality

and sustainability of the engagement of an incumbent on contract basis after his/her retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation has

already been decided by this Court in earlier cases and accordingly, this Court is bound to follow the ratio laid down by this Court in its judgments &

orders passed in earlier cases.

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the engagement of the private respondent No. 4 on contract basis after her retirement

from service is not legally sustainable and accordingly, as an interim measure, it is directed that till the next date the engagement of the respondent No.

4 as Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) and in-charge Director (Hort. & SC) on contract basis shall not be given effect to and the respondent No. 4 should

not be allowed to function as Addl. Director (Hort. & SC) and in-charge Director (Hort. & SC) on contract basis.

List this case again on 16.4.2021 for final disposal of the case.

In the meantime, the parties are directed to exchange their respective affidavits.

A copy of this order be furnished to both the counsel appearing for the parties through their whatsapp/e-mail.