reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
1. Shri Thongam Homendro Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o Th.
Tompok Singh, resident of Khongnang Pheidekpi, P.O. & P.S.
Singjamei and District Imphal West, Manipur, Pin-795008.
2. Shri William Maram, aged about 36 years, S/o Disong, resident
of Taphou Naga Village, P.O., P.S. and District Senapati,
Manipur Pin-795106.
... Petitioner/s
…
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur through the Additional Chief Secretary
(RD & PR.), Government of Manipur, new Secretariat P.O &
P.S. Imphal and District Imphal West, Manipur Pin-795001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner/Executive Director, DRDA,
Senapati, P.O., P.S. and District Senapati, Manipur Pin-
795106.
........Respondent/s
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioners :: Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, Advocate.
For the respondents :: Mr. Shyam Sharma, G.A.
Date of Hearing :: 25.06.2024/17.12.2024
Date of Order :: 27.12.2024
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 1
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. AP. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned G.A. for the respondents.
[2] The case of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed
as Assistant Project Officer (APO) on contract basis in the NREGA Wing of
DRDA, Senapati vide order dated 04.01.2010. Vide another order dated
12.01.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, DRDA,
Senapati, in partial modification of the earlier order dated 04.01.2010,
engaged the petitioners as APO on contract basis in DRDA, Senapati. The
Deputy Commissioner/Executive Director, DRDA, Senapati submitted
details of the officials in DRDA, Senapati to the Joint Secretary (RD & PR),
Govt. of Manipur vide letter dated 17.10.2014. The Joint Secretary (RD &
PR) sent a letter to the Executive Director (DRDA), Senapati on 18.10.2014
wherein it was stated that there was excess number of staff at various
positions under DRDA, Senapati and further requested to fill up the vacant
positions through duly constituted DPC from amongst the existing personnel,
if found eligible against the vacant posts and any excess manpower
remaining after taking the above steps to be terminated forthwith.
[3] On 06.04.2016, the Deputy Commissioner/Executive Director,
DRDA, Senapati sent a letter to the Principal Secretary (RD & PR),
Government of Manipur thereby submitting the proceeding of DPC for filling
up of vacant post of DRDA, Senapati and it was stated in the said letter that
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 2
after the Committee examined carefully the service records and ACRs of the
APOs, the petitioners (having completed 6 years of service) were fit for
promotion to the post of Project officer. As per the letter dated 07.05.2016 of
the Additional Secretary (RD & PR), Government of Manipur to the Deputy
Commissioner/Executive Director, DRDA, Senapati, the proceedings of the
DPC for filling up the vacant post of DRDA, Senapati was approved.
Consequent upon the said order, the Deputy Commissioner/Executive
Director issued an order dated 09.05.2016, whereby the petitioners were
appointed as Project Officers on promotion on regular basis in DRDA,
Senapati.
[4] The Secretary (RD & PR), Government of Manipur issued an
order dated 18.11.2016 whereby as many as 80 direct recruited contract
employees of various categories of various DRDA were absorbed and
regularized in RD & PR Department against the posts created. However, the
petitioners were absorbed and regularized to the initial post of APO and not
to the promoted higher post of Project Officer. However, the other similarly
promoted incumbents were absorbed and regularized in their respective
promoted posts. Being aggrieved, the petitioners submitted a common
representation dated 26.12.2016 to the DC/Executive Director, DRDA,
Senapati for absorption as Project Officer as done in the case of similarly
situated incumbents. The DC/Executive Director, DRDA, Senapati wrote a
letter dated 28.12.2016 to the Secretary (RD & PR), Government of Manipur
for absorption of the petitioners to the post of Project Officers in RD & PR,
as they had already been promoted to the post of Project Officer from the
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 3
post of APO by a duly constituted Committee and further stated that the
proceedings of the DPC was approved by the State Government on
07.05.2015 and accordingly, the appointment orders had been issued for all
the staffs including the petitioners. The representation submitted by the
petitioner is still pending with the authorities.
[5] Respondent No. 5 filed counter affidavit stating that the present
petitioners had already joined to the post of APO on the communication
made by the Screening Committee Meeting held on 17.11.2016, they cannot
claim for regularising their services to the post of Project Officer by
promotion, as for promotion to the post of Project Officer requires 4 years of
regular services in the post of APO. It is stated that the experience gained
by the petitioners as APO in the DRDA, Senapati on contract basis cannot
be counted as experience for promotion to the post of Project Officer in the
Department of RD & PR. It is also stated that since the petitioners were
appointed to the post of APO in the RD & PR by an order dated 18.11.2016,
their appointment by promotion by an order dated 18.11.2016 were treated
as cancelled on the ground of being appointed as APO on regular basis in
the RD & PR, DRDA-Wing by clarification letter dated 21.11.2016 issued by
the DC/Executive Director, DRDA, Senapati.
[6] The petitioners filed rejoinder affidavit stating that the
recommendation of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Project
Officer was made duly after holding the proper DPC. Therefore, it is stated
that the letter dated 21.11.2016 and termination order dated 30.11.2016
issued by the DC, Senapati are in total violation of the established principle
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 4
of law. Further, it is stated that the letter dated 28.12.2016 issued by the DC,
Senapati superseded the earlier orders and clearly explained that all
anomalies/irregularities have been rectified according to the approved
staffing pattern of the DRDA Guidelines thereby the petitioners may be
absorbed as Project Officers by modifying the earlier orders. It is also stated
that all the absorbed employees were contract employees of DRDA
Department and as such, all the employees are in the same footing and
therefore, the question of the petitioners being different from other
employees does not arise. It is prayed that the writ petition be allowed.
[7] Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that except for the petitioners herein, all other employees of the erstwhile
DRDAs have been absorbed in promoted posts. However, the petitioners
are treated differently and they have been absorbed to the lower post even
though they were duly promoted to the higher post of Project Officer. This
anomaly was pointed out by the DC/Executive Director, DRDA, Senapati to
the Secretary (RD & PR), Govt. of Manipur in its letter dated 28.12.2016
(Annexure-16) recommending the absorption of the petitioners as Project
Officer. It is plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a model
employer, the State respondents ought to have treated all similarly situated
persons while conferring certain service benefits including promotion. It is
prayed that the State respondents be directed to upgrade the absorption of
the petitioners from the post of Assistant Project Officers to the post of
Project Officers in parity with other employees.
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 5
[8] In the written submission of the petitioners, it is relied on the decision
Civil Appeal No. 6994 of 2021: Dr. G.
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sadasivan Nair vs Cochin University of Science and Technology
represented by its registrar & others.
“Para 33. Therefore, we are of the view that if the respondent
university sought to deny the benefit of Rule 25(a), in light of the
proviso which was subsequently inserted thereby limiting the benefit
of the Rule, it ought to have done so uniformly. The proviso could
have been made applicable in relation to all employees who retired
from service of the respondent University following the introduction
of the proviso, i.e. after 12th February 1985. However, the action of
the respondent University of selectively applying the proviso to Rule
25(a) in relation to the appellant, while not applying the said proviso
in relation to similarly situated persons, is arbitrary and therefore
illegal, Such discrimination, which is not based any reasonable
classification, is violative of all canons of equality which are
enshrined in the Constitution of India.
[9] Union of India and
Another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Others vs Munshi Ram :2022 LiveLaw (SC)891 where the employees
working under the same employer-Railway Board working in different
Zones/Divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and are
entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment.
Para 7. It cannot be disputed that employees working in different
“
divisions/zones in the railways are under the very same employer-
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 6
Railway Board which is under the Ministry of Railways. There are 16
zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees
working under the same employer-railway Board working in different
zones/ divisions are required to be treated similarly and equally and
entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same treatment. As
rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, there cannot be any
discrimination inter-se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of
parity, the Commission Vendors/ Bearers working in the Northern
Railway entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to
all similarly situated Commission Vendors/ Bearers working under
different Zones/Divisions. There cannot be different criteria/
parameters with respect to similarly situated employees -
Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions,
but working under the same employer .
”
Para 8. The Railways/ UOI/ Railway Board cannot be permitted to
“
repeat the same arguments which were raised before different
Tribunals, High Courts and also before this court. Under the
circumstances, the respondents Commission Vendors/bearers
working in the Northern railway shall also be entitled to the same
benefits which the other Commission Vendors/bearers working in
different Zones/Divisions are held to be entitled to. There cannot be
discrimination among the similarly situated Commission Vendors/
Bearers. To deny similar benefits would tantamount to discrimination
and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 7
[10] The petitioner counsel also submitted that The Document dated
09/06/2016 which is a letter to the Hon'ble Minister (RD&PR) Manipur, by
the Direct Recruit District Rural Development Agency Employees' Union that
the respondent counsel has been referring to, wherein the signature of the
Petitioners has also been given is inconsequential as it is a letter praying for
absorption. It does not specify for what post. The petitioners wanted to be
absorbed in the post they were promoted to as Project Officer like all other
similarly situated persons.
[11] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate tries to justify the
absorption of the petitioners to the lower post of Assistant Project Officers in
RD & PR, as they did not have requisite service length for promotion to the
Project Officer. It is the contention of the respondents that the contractual
service rendered by the petitioners in DRDA, Senapati cannot be
considered. Referring to the original Govt. file for Absorption of DRDAs staffs
in various Line Departments [File No. 2/92//2007-RD(MC)Pt. submitted to
the court], learned GA draws the attention of this Court to a representation
dated 09.06.2016 submitted by Direct recruit District Rural Development
Agency Employees’ Association to the Minister (RD & PR), Manipur for
absorption of direct recruit contract staff of DRDAs. It is pointed out that in
the List of DPC faced contractual staff of DRDA, Manipur enclosed with the
representation, the designation of the petitioners herein is shown as “APO”,
ie, Assistant Project Officer. It is emphasised that the Association itself prays
for absorption of the petitioners as APO. Accordingly, it is prayed that the
writ petition be dismissed devoid of any merit.
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 8
[12] This Court peruses the materials on record including the original
government file, considers the submissions made at bar and the relevant
case laws. The short question involved in the present petition is whether the
petitioners herein are also entitled to be absorbed in the higher promoted
post in RD & PR as done in the case of other similarly situated employees
of DRDA.
[13] The admitted facts necessary for consideration in the present case
are: (i) the petitioners and others were initially appointed in various levels of
post in DRDA; (ii) vide order dated 09.05.2016 issued by DC/Executive
Director, DRDA, Senapati, the petitioners were promoted to the post of
Project Officer from the post of Assistant Project Officer in DRDA, Senapati
on regular basis on the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC; (iii) the
recommendation of the DPC was accepted by the State Government; (iv)
vide order dated 18.11.2016 issued by the Secretary (RD & PR), Govt. of
Manipur, 80 direct recruit contract employees of various categories of
DRDAs including the petitioners were absorbed in RD & PR; (v) except the
petitioners herein, all staff of DRDA were absorbed in the promoted post and
the petitioners were absorbed in the lower post of Assistant Project Officer
even after their promotion to the post of Project Officer; (vi) vide another
order dated 24.12.2016 issued by the Secretary (RD & PR), Govt. of
Manipur, 249 staff of various categories of 9 DRDAs were absorbed and
regularised in RD & PR at the same posts held by them; (vii) only the
petitioners were absorbed to and regularised at the lower posts and this
anomaly was explained by DC/Executive Director, DRDA, Senapati to the
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 9
Secretary (RD & PR) vide letter dated 28.12.2016 (Annexure A-16) for
absorption as Project Officer.
[14] The State respondents try to justify the absorption of the petitioners to
the lower posts mainly on the ground that they were not eligible as per RR,
the contractual service in DRDA could not be counted for calculating
minimum service tenure for promotion, and the Association itself prayed for
their absorption as Assistant Project Officer. Surprisingly, such scrutiny was
not made in case of other staff of various DRDAs who were regularised along
with the petitioners and afterwards. This Court has perused the
representation dated 09.06.2016 submitted by the Association to the
concerned Minister for their absorption in line department as regular
List of the DPC faced contractual staff of DRDA,
employees. In the list of “
Manipur
”, against the names of the petitioners, “APO” was mentioned.
Learned GA presumes that the request was for absorption as “APO”. This
Court is of the opinion that such presumption is preposterous and without
any substance. The list is nothing but name of those contractual staff who
appeared in the DPC. It is an admitted fact some of the staff who appeared
in the DPC were subsequently promoted. The petitioners were also
promoted from the post of Assistant Project Officer to the post of Project
Officer in pursuance to the recommendation of the DPC. The submission of
learned GA in this regard is rejected without any force.
[15] At the expenses of repetitions, it may be emphasised that similarly
placed persons are to be treated equally. In a recent decision passed by the
The State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 10
Shyam Kumar [Order dated 22.07.2024; SLP(C) No.25609/2018]:
MANU/SCOR/87335/2024 @ Para 5, it has been held that benefits must be
extended to all those who fall within the parameter of a policy. Para 5 is
reproduced below:
5. It is true that an employee engaged on daily wages has no legally
“
vested right to seek regularisation of his services. However, if the
competent authority takes a policy decision within the permissible
framework, its benefit must be extended to all those who fall within
the parameters of such a policy. Authorities cannot be permitted to
pick and choose in such circu
mstances.”
[16] This Court is of the view that the ratio of the above-cited case is
exactly applicable to the facts of the present case. Here also, by making a
comprehensible scheme, staff of the various DRDAs in Manipur have been
absorbed in RD & PR on regular basis. Except for the petitioners, all other
similarly situated staff were absorbed and regularised to their promoted post.
However, the petitioners were absorbed and regularised to the lower post of
Assistant Project Officer, even after their promotion to the post of Project
Officer on regular basis on the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC.
The anomaly was explained in Annexure A-16 by the DC/Executive Director,
DRDA, Senapati. There is no reason to deny the petitioners from their
absorption as Project Officer in RD & PR. Singling out the petitioners cannot
be sustained.
[17] Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The designation of the
petitioners as shown in column III at serial number 26 and 27 in the
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 11
absorption order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure A-13) issued by the Secretary
(RD & PR), Govt. of Manipur is to be treated and Project Officer
read as “ ” in
place of “Assistant Project Officer” for all purposes. The petitioners will be
entitled to the appropriate pay and allowances attached to the post of Project
Officer with all consequential service benefits wef 18.11.2016. If vacant
posts were not available on the relevant date, State respondents are at
liberty to create supernumerary posts to adjust the petitioners, if so required.
With these directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Interim orders, if any, merge with this final order. Pending applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
[18] Return government file.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Kh. Joshua Maring
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR
PRIYOJIT
PRIYOJIT SINGH
Date: 2024.12.29
SINGH
12:00:52 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Page 12