Yaikhom Joykumar Singh vs State Of Manipur

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 13.7.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue),

Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents to regularize/absorb the contract services of the petitioner as Peon/Grade-IV of the office of

the Sub Divisional Officer, Bishnupur against the existing vacancy within a stipulated period, as has been done in respect of similarly situated

incumbents with consequential benefits including releasing of his unpaid wages/salary.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The case of the petitioner is that on 2.5.1998, he was initially engaged as Peon in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bishnupur on contract

basis for a period of one year on payment of consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- per month against the post available due to the retirement of one Ch.

Ibopishak Singh or for a period till the post is filled up on regular basis. Subsequently, vide order dated 24.5.1999, his term of engagement was

extended for a period of one year with effect from 3.4.1999 on consolidated payment of Rs.2000/- per month. Since then, the petitioner has been

continuously working as Peon in the said office for almost two decades. While so, on 7.9.2016, the Sub Divisional Officer, Bishnpur wrote a letter to

the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur for taking appropriate action for absorption of the petitioner by indicating the vacancies available in the office

against which the petitioner can be absorbed. Since no action was taken, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.23 of 2017 with a prayer to regularize the

contract service of the petitioner as Peon/Grade IV in the said office against the available vacancy.

By the order dated 20.1.2017, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider regularization of the

service of the petitioner as Grade- IV/Peon based on various orders of regularization issued in respect of similarly situated person in the light of the

order passed in W.P.(C) No.220 of 2016. Since the respondent authorities failed to obey the order of this Court, the petitioner has filed Contempt

Case (C) No.135 of 2017 and during the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondent Deputy Secretary (Revenue) issued the impugned order

rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition.

The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the initial engagement of the petitioner was without following the rules and regulation. It

is stated that the petitioner’s engagement was extended by another one year with effect from 3.4.1999 on a consolidated pay of Rs.2000/- per

month and thereafter, his engagement as Peon has not been extended.

In the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that pursuant to the legal notice dated 6.2.2017, an enquiry was made and no record for the

petitioner’s engagement as Peon beyond 2.4.2000 was found. Further, the approval of the Administrative Department as well as the concurrent of

Finance Department was not obtained for appointment/engaging the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner is not the appointing authority for any

cadre of post in the Revenue Department. Hence, the petitioner's initial engagement is non-est in the eye of law and therefore, he is not entitled to any

relief prayed for in the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Peon in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bishupur on

2.5.1998 on contract basis and has been rendering service as contract Peon-cum-Choukidar since then. He would submit that there are similarly

situated persons as the petitioner whose service has been regularized and that the petitioner has been recommended by the Sub Divisional Officer for

regularization of his service. Drawing attention of this Court to the order passed in W.P.(C) No.220 of 2016, the learned counsel submitted that the

similarly situated persons were considered by the respondent authorities and therefore, the same benefit ought to have been extended to the petitioner

also.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the very initial engagement of the petitioner was without following the rules and

regulation and that no approval from the Administrative Department as well as concurrence from the Finance Department was obtained for engaging

the petitioner. He would submit that no record for the engagement of the petitioner as Peon beyond 2.4.2000 was found. Hence, the Deputy Secretary

(Revenue) has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner.

This Court considered the submissions raised by both parties and also perused the materials available on record.

Though the first respondent in his affidavit-in- opposition stated that the Initial engagement of the petitioner was without following any prescribed

rules and regulations, In the next sentence, the first respondent stated that his engagement was extended by another one year with effect from

3.4.1999 on a consolidated pay of Rs.2000/- per month vide order dated 24.5.1999 and thereafter, his engagement as Peon has not been extended.

The further contention of the first respondent is that no record for the engagement of the petitioner as Peon beyond 2.4.2000 was found. The said

contention of the first respondent is contrary to the letter dated 7.9.2016 addressed by the third respondent to the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur.

For proper appreciation, the contents of letter dated 7.9.2016 is extracted herein under:

“Sir,

In inviting a reference on the above subject, I have the honour to submit the following information in respect of Shri Y.Joykumar Singh, Contract

Peon- cum-Choukidar of SDO’s Office, Bishnupur.

Shri Y.Joykumar Singh was engaged as a peon on contract basis vide Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur letter No.1/2/Estt/89-DCB(Pt) dated 2nd

May, 1998 (copy enclosed) and he is still serving as contract peon-cum-choukidar till date.

There is a sanction post for 1 (one) Choukidar in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur (MGEL Copy Enclosed) which remains vacant

till date.

Shri. Y.Jokumar Singh also faced DPC in 2006 (Admit Card Copy enclosed).

Shri. Y.Joykumar Singh is a sincere, honest and hard working employee.

It is submitted for kind necessary action from your end.â€​

Thus, it is clear that the initial engagement of the petitioner as Peon in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur and his continuance till

date has been clearly established by the petitioner by producing the letter dated 7.9.2016 referred to above. Therefore, the plea of the first respondent

that no record for the engagement of the petitioner beyond 2.4.2000 found is totally false and the first respondent has taken the said plea only for the

purpose of denying the claim of the petitioner. The working of the petitioner as Peon has also been proved by way of the order dated 23.9.2016

produced by the petitioner, wherein the name of the petitioner has been mentioned and against his name, his designation has been mentioned as Peon.

The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the first respondent mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not been utilized after 2.4.2000

i.e., after the end of his contractual engagement of the Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur. If really, the services of the petitioner has not been utilized

by the respondent authorities after 2.4.2000, how it could be possible for the third respondent to assign election duty to the petitioner for the elections

of the Assembly Constituencies of Bishnupur District held from 27 to 30.9.2016. Further, the petitioner has been issued with the Election Duty identity

card on 5.10.2017 for the 5° General Panchayat Election- 2017. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has been continuously working as Peon in the

office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishnupur till date.

From the pleadings produced by the petitioner and the documents annexed thereto, it Is clear that the petitioner has rendered more than 20 years

of continuous service on contract basis as Peon by getting a meager amount as salary with the hope and trust that his services shall be regularized by

the respondent authorities.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Ksh. Ibopishak Singh, who was working as Chowkidar-cum- Peon in the Office of the

Deputy Collector, Yairipok has filed W.P.(C) No.220 of 2016 seeking to regularize his services and by an order dated 25.7.2016, this Court directed

the authorities concerned therein to consider the claim of the said person for his regularization. He would submit that pursuant to the order passed in

the writ petition and pending contempt petition, the respondent authorities therein regularized the service of Ksh.Ibopishak Singh as Chowkidar in Sub-

Deputy Collector’s Office, Yairibok in the time scale of pay with effect from 27.12.2017. Since the petitioner is similarly situated person, the same

benefit ought to have been extended to him also. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance.

Placing reliance upon the decision in the case of the Secretary State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC

1, the learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that a temporary employee would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made

permanent merely on the strength of such continuance if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged

by the relevant recruitment rules.

The initial engagement/appointment of the petitioner as Peon on contract basis during the year 1998 and his further extension has been proved by

the petitioner by producing various documents and in fact, as stated supra, the third respondent himself certified that the petitioner is still working in the

office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bishnupur as Peon.

It is pertinent to note that since the claim of the petitioner for regularization has not been considered by the first respondent despite the

.recommendation of the third respondent, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.23 of 2017 and by the order dated 20.1.2017, this Court, disposed of the

said writ petition and the operative portion of the order reads thus:

“In view of the above submission made, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to consider

regularization of the service of the petitioner as Grade-IV/Peon based on the various orders of regularization issued in respect of similarly situated

persons as well as in the light of the order passed in WP(C) No. 220 of 2016.

The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the respondent authorities within a period of three months from today and till such consideration is made

or proper order is passed by the respondent authorities, the petitioner will be allowed to continue his service and will be entitled to get the due

remuneration for the service rendered by him.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.â€​

Since the respondent authorities failed to consider the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed Contempt Case No.135 of 2017 and pending

contempt case, the first respondent issued the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.23 of 2017 issued positive direction to the respondent

authorities to consider regularization of the service of the petitioner as Grade-IV/Peon based on the various orders of regularization issued in respect

of similarly situated persons as well as in the light of the order passed in WP(C) No.220 of 2016. Admittedly, after passing order in W.P.(C) No.23 of

2017 and keeping waited for nearly one and half years and also facing with the contempt case, the first respondent has hurriedly passed the impugned

order rejecting the claim of the petitioner without looking into the factual aspects of the matter, Since the direction of this Court is positive in nature,

the rejection made by the first respondent is arbitrary in nature that too the respondent authorities have not filed any appeal against the order passed in

W.P.(C) No.23 of 2017 and allowed the order to attain finality.

In the impugned order, the first respondent has stated that the service of the petitioner has not been utilized after 2.4.2000. The said plea of the

first respondent has not been substantiated by production of documentary evidence. On the other hand, the petitioner has produced the letter dated

7.9.2016 addressed by the third respondent to the Deputy Commissioner, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner was serving as

contract Peon-cum-Chowkidar till date coupled with the production of copy of order assigning election duty during the year 2017. The petitioner has

also produced the identity card dated 09.10.2017 issued by the Returning Officer, Bishnupur in the name of the petitioner for the 5th General

Panchayat election duty, 2017. It is also clear from the letter dated 2.9.2016 that the petitioner has faced DPC in the year 2006 and he is a sincere,

honest and hard working employee.

In the factual scenario aforesaid and also taking into consideration the long service rendered by the petitioner i.e., more than 20 years, the

respondent authorities particularly, the first respondent ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner for regularization, The acts of the

respondent authorities in not regularizing the petitioner to the post of Peon/Grade IV of the office of the third respondent though there is a regular

vacancy despite positive direction by this Court is unlawful. Further, the fact that the petitioner had rendered his service continuously for more than 20

years diligently, sincerely, regularly and with devotion without any blemish will merit consideration for regular appointment against the existing vacancy

as stated by the third respondent in the letter dated 7.9.2016. That apart, nobody questioned the engagement/appointment of the petitioner as Peon till

date. Therefore, the reasoning given by the first respondent for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is not acceptable and the same has been issued

without applying the mind that too in a hurried manner in order to avoid the contempt proceedings. The interest of justice warrants the petitioner to be

regularized considering his pathetic situation. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

In the result,

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 13.7.2018 passed by the first respondent is set aside.

(iii) The respondent authorities are directed to regularize the contract service of the petitioner as Peon/Grade IV of the office of the Sub Divisional

Officer, Bishnupur against the existing vacancy within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pay permissible

salary to him within two weeks thereafter.

(iv) No costs.

Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.