AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri Ng. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Th. Sobhana, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. None is present for the other respondents.
By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the contract service of the petitioner as Senior Scientific Assistant in the Manipur Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in the same manner as has been done in respect of the cases of 35 (thirty five) contract employees.
1. According to the petitioner, she being an M.Sc. (Zoology), was appointed as Senior Scientific Assistant on contract basis on payment of a consolidated pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month, along with one Ch. Landhoni Devi who was appointed as Laboratory Assistant, vide order dated 09-03-1999 issued by the Member Secretary of the Board. While the petitioner was working as Senior Scientific Assistant on contract basis, she was, on the recommendation of a Screening Committee, given regular appointment to the said post vide order dated 01-04- 2003 issued by the Chairman of the Board. However, the petitioner was not paid her monthly salary in the pay scale attached to the said post of Senior Scientific Assistant and on the termination of the service of one Lanshairung Golmei, a regular SSA, the petitioner expected that she would be paid her monthly salary in the pay scale of the Senior Scientific Assistant but when the same was not done by the authority concerned, she submitted her representation dated 20-10-2006 to the Chairman of the Board. Without considering her representation, the petitioner was asked by the Chairman of the Board to sign and submit a prescribed format titled "Standard Agreement Format for Engagement on Contract Basis" vide Office Memorandum dated 13-11-2006 of the Member Secretary, to which the petitioner submitted another representation dated 16-11-2006 to him stating therein that since she had been appointed on regular basis, she was not required to sign such a prescribed format. 3.2. Thereafter, the Chairman of the Board served a Show Cause Notice dated 06-12-2006 upon the petitioner on 08- 12-2006 directing her to sign the said prescribed format, failing which necessary disciplinary actions be taken against her. Although the petitioner had shown her cause, she filed a writ petition being W.P (C) No.1138 of 2006, along with an application, challenging the OM dated 13-11-2006 wherein the Hon''ble High Court vide its order dated 14-12-2006 was pleased to pass an interim order in the said application directing the respondents therein not to take any disciplinary action against her and also not to subject her to execute the said prescribed format until further order. Two days later i.e. on 16-12-2006 the petitioner was served with a copy of the order dated 13-12-2006 by which her contract service was terminated and being aggrieved by it, she approached the Hon''ble High Court by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1186 of 2006 wherein the termination order dated 13-12-2006 was stayed. On 23-05-2007 both the said writ petitions came to be dismissed by the Hon''ble High Court vide its common judgment and order, relevant directions of the Hon''ble High Court are reproduced herein below:-
"(iii) Further, in the facts and circumstances, it will not be proper and just not to allow the petitioner to work as Sr. Scientific Assistant on contract basis again, since the petitioner has already submitted the required Format after putting her signature;
(iv) The concerned respondents shall have to pass an appropriate order allowing her to serve as Senior Scientific Assistant further on contract basis as done in the case of other persons serving in the office of the Board on contract basis so long as the concerned post is not filled up on regular basis or till her service is required."
3.3. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment and order dated 23-05-2007, two writ appeals being W.A. No. 43 of 2007 and W.A. No.44 of 2007 came to be preferred and during the pendency of the said writ appeals, the petitioner was taken back into service on contract basis vide order dated 07 -06-2008 issued by the Member Secretary. On 27-08-2008 although the Hon''ble High Court found the termination order to be issued backdated, it did not take any action on unconditional apology being tendered by the officers and disposed of the said appeals directing the Board to pay the petitioner her back wages for the period from 13-12-2006 to 24-03-2008. But when the Board failed to pay her back wages as directed by this court, she submitted a representation dated 03-11-2008 and since no action was taken by the Board, the petitioner was compelled to file a contempt case being Cont. Case (C) No.170 of 2008. Instead of complying with the earlier court''s order, the Member Secretary of the Board issued an order dated 29-01-2009 ordering that the service of the petitioner should stand discontinued which prompted the petitioner to file another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.121 of 2009 and the same is still pending for disposal by this court. However, the said termination order dated 29-01-2009 was stayed by the Hon''ble High Court vide its interim order passed on 27-02-2009 which was later extended from time to time vide various orders passed by the Hon''ble High Court, the last being the order dated 26-10- 2016 which extended it until further.
3.4. Recently, the petitioner came to know that the services of all 35 (thirty five) contract employees of the Board who are similarly situated with the petitioner, have been given regular appointment vide order dated 17-11-2016 issued by the Member Secretary of the Board including one Ch. Landhoni Devi who was appointed along with the petitioner on the same day on 09-03-1999 leaving the petitioner behind. Being aggrieved by such action of the Board, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 28-12-2016 requesting the Commissioner (Forest & Environment), Government of Manipur and the Member Secretary, Manipur Pollution Control Board which is still pending for consideration by them. Having no alternative, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the inter-alia grounds that the non-regularisation of the petitioner as Senior Scientific Assistant, while all others similarly situated have been regularised, is blatantly arbitrary, malafide, vindictive being violatve of the provisions of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The State respondents namely the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, though they entered appearance through their counsel, have not contested the writ petition by filing an affidavit-in- opposition, may be, for the reason that they felt that they did not have much role to play. So far as the other respondents namely the Board and its officials are concerned, despite notice being served upon them, they failed to enter appearance through an advocate nor did they appear in person. It can be aptly inferred that they have chosen not to contest the present writ petition and therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, the averments made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
It is on record that the petitioner was initially appointed as the Senior Scientific Assistant on contract basis vide order dated 09-3-1999 followed by an order dated 01-04- 2003 appointing her as the Senior Scientific Assistant, against one of the posts created for it, on the basis of the recommendation of a Screening Committee. When the petitioner was not paid her salary in the scale of pay mentioned in her appointment order, she submitted a representation dated 20-10 -2006 to the Chairman of the Board requesting for payment of due salaries and without considering her representation, it so happened that the Member Secretary of the Board issued an Office Memorandum dated 13-11-2006 informing all the casual/ contract employees including the petitioner to submit a prescribed format titled "Standard Agreement Format for Engagement on Contract Basis". The petitioner raised an objection thereto vide her representation dated 16-11-2006 on the ground that she had already been appointed on regular basis, to which the Chairman of the Board issued a show cause notice dated 06-12-2006 directing the petitioner to submit the said duly signed prescribed format, failing which necessary disciplinary actions be taken against her. Despite a representation dated 11-12-2006 being submitted by her, she approached the Hon''ble High Court by way of a writ petition being WP (C) No.1138 of 2006 wherein the Hon''ble High Court directed the respondents not to take any disciplinary action and not to subject her to execute the contract agreement until further orders. Instead of complying with the court''s order, the Chairman of the Board issued a backdated order dated 13-12-2006 terminating the service of the petitioner with immediate effect, which came to be challenged by her in WP (C) No.1186 of 2006. Both the writ petitions being WP (C) No.1138 of 2006 and 1186 of 2006 were dismissed vide a common judgment and order dated 23-05-2007 passed by the Hon''ble High Court with the direction that the petitioner be allowed to serve as the Senior Scientific Assistant until the post was filled up on regular basis. Being aggrieved by the said common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, two writ appeals being WA No.43 and 44 of 2007 came to be preferred which were disposed on 27-08-2008 as infructuous, when the Hon''ble Court was informed that the petitioner had been allowed to resume duty on 07-06-2008, with the direction that the petitioner be paid her back wages for the period from 13-12-2006 to 24-03-2008 within two weeks therefrom. When the petitioner was not paid her back wages as directed, she was compelled to file a contempt petition wherein the Hon''ble High Court was pleased to issue notice but instead of complying with the court''s order, the Member Secretary of the Board issued an order dated 29-01-2009 to the effect that her service should stand discontinued with effect from the next day. This order dated 29-01-2009 was challenged in a writ petition being WP (C) No.121 of 2009 wherein an interim order was passed on 27-02-2009 which was continued from time to time till 26-10-2016 when the said order dated 27-02-2009 was directed to be continued until further order. While the said WP(C) No.121 of 2009 was pending for adjudication by the Hon''ble High Court, the Member Secretary of the Board issued an order dated 11-06-2016 regularising the services of as many as 35 contract employees excluding the petitioner.
From the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, the animosity or the tussle between the petitioner and the Board began to emerge from the day when she claimed that she had been appointed on regular basis vide order dated 01-04-2003 issued by the Chairman of the Board. The question as to whether the petitioner had been appointed on regular basis vide order dated 01-04-2003 or not is not the subject-matter in issue in the present case and therefore, it may not be appropriate for this court to make any observation in respect thereof. But on perusal of the said order dated 01-04-2003, it is seen that it does not seem to be a mere order extending the contract service of the petitioner but it does seem to be something more than that for the reason that the same was issued on the basis of the recommendation of a Screening Committee against one of the posts created as Senior Scientific Assistants and that too, without specifying any period of time therein, ie., until further order. The said animosity went on and on two occasions ie., on 13-12-2006 and 29-01-2009, attempts were made by the Board for terminating the contract service of the petitioner but in vain on account of the timely interference by the Hon''ble High Court. It may be noted that the Hon''ble High Court while disposing of the said writ appeals, found vide its judgment and order dated 27 -08-2008 that the said order dated 13-12-2006 was issued by the Board backdated to flout deliberately the court''s order. But the Hon''ble High Court did not take any action against the two officers-one, the Member Secretary and two, the Superintending Engineer of the Board on their unconditional apology being tendered by them. As regards the issue involved herein, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as many as 35 contract employees have been regularized by the Board but the petitioner has been denied of such a benefit although she is similarly situated with them. The reason as to why the petitioner has been discriminated by the Board, is not available on record, as the Board has chosen not to contest the writ petition by filing an affidavit nor does it appear in court. But the fact that 35 contract employees have been regularized by the Board, is evident from the order dated 17-11-2016 issued by the Member Secretary of the Board. The non-regularisation of the petitioner''s contract service by the Board is highly unreasonable and arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is a blatant victimization to the petitioner. The Board being an institution, is expected to act fairly and reasonably and the said animosity cannot be a ground for denial of such similar benefit to the petitioner. One of the reasons for leaving the petitioner behind from being considered for regularization, appears to be that her approaches to the Hon''ble High Court quite often has annoyed the Board, as a result thereof the petitioner has been singled out without any valid & cogent reason and for other reasons best known to them. But it must be understood by the Board that every person has a right to approach the Hon''ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of a writ petition for redressal of his grievances and in particular, for the enforcement of his legal right or fundamental rights and it is only for the Hon''ble High Court either to allow or dismiss the same depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The petitioner cannot be panelized, for no fault of her, by the erroneous thinking of the Board that it can do anything, at its whims and fancies, without following the rule of law. It is a part of the system prevailing in the country which has to work in accordance with law.
For the reasons stated herein above, the present writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (a) The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the Board, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein, shall take immediate and appropriate steps to ensure that the contract service of the petitioner is regularized, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, in the same manner as has been done in respect of 35 contract employees;
(b) The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the Board, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein, shall issue an order regularizing the contract service of the petitioner within a week after the said direction (a) above having been complied with by them. There shall be no order as to costs.