LAIREN MAYUM INDRAJ EET SINGH v. E. Sujata Devi

Heard Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants; and Mr. L. Anand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner. This case has a long and checkered history. The writ petitioner’s late husband, H. Nishikanta Singh, was appointed as a primary teacher on ad-hoc basis for a period of 3(three) months, vide order dated 16.10.1998 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. Admittedly, his services were extended from time to time. The last such extension was up to

31.08.2010, vide order dated 27.11.2010 issued by the Commissioner, Education (S), Government of Manipur. Though there was no order of extension thereafter, it is the claim of the writ petitioner that her husband continued to render service as a primary teacher at Moirangkhom Junior High School, Imphal, until 28.09.2013. He died shortly thereafter, on 02.10.2013. W.P. (C) No. 214 of 2016 was filed by the writ petitioner before this Court claiming that her late husband had not been paid wages and allowances for the period 01.09.2010 to 28.09.2013. The said writ petition was disposed of, by order dated 15.07.2016, directing the authorities to verify the particulars of the service rendered by the writ petitioner’s husband and more particularly, from 01.09.2010 to 28.09.2013, and if, on such verification, it was found that he had rendered service, the State Government was directed to release his pay and allowances. Pursuant thereto, by order dated

29.08.2017 issued by the Principal Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur, it was conveyed that after careful examination of the matter, the Governor of Manipur was pleased to order that the ad-hoc services of late H. Nishikanta Singh were not extended beyond 31.08.2010 and he had no right to continue in service without authority and that there was no proper satisfactory report of his having attended the school/office. On this basis, he was held disentitled to pay and allowances w.e.f. 01.09.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner again approached this Court by way of W.P. (C) No. 652 of 2018. This writ petition was disposed of, by order dated 31.07.2018, directing the authorities to examine the claim of the writ petitioner for remuneration for the service rendered by her husband. The authorities were directed to work out the entitlement of the writ petitioner after verifying the relevant records and, thereafter, make necessary payments within a time frame. Beyond the stipulated time, the amount was to carry interest @ 6% per annum. In compliance therewith, order dated

15.11.2018 was issued by the Commissioner, Education(s), Government of Manipur. Therein, it was opined that continuation of the writ petitioner’s husband in ad-hoc service without sanction of the competent authority had to be treated as unauthorized service or voluntary service, which may have been rendered in collusion with the then headmaster of the school, without the approval of the competent authority. Therefore, the Governor of Manipur ordered that late H. Nishikanta Singh was not serving under the Education-S Department after 31.08.2010 and his act of rendering service, if any, after

31.08.2010, without the knowledge and approval of the competent authority should be taken as unauthorized service or voluntary service, for which he would not be entitled to get any pay and allowances. The order dated 15.11.2018 was then subjected to challenge by the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 560 of 2019 which was allowed by way of the judgment, presently under consideration in this appeal. Therein, the Ld. Judge took note of the aforestated facts and also the litigation instituted by 71 similarly situated ad-hoc primary teachers in W.P. (C) No. 1016 of 2014, which was disposed of by order dated 30.03.2015. Pertinent to note, the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 214 of 2016, the first case filed by the writ petitioner, was based upon the order in W.P. (C) No. 1016 of 2014. The Ld. Judge then opined that the writ petitioner’s husband stood on par with those 71 ad-hoc primary teachers and granted relief. Be it noted that the quantification of the pay and allowances/back wages payable to the writ petitioner’s late husband was done by the Director, Education (S), Government of Manipur, himself, and on that basis the Ld. Judge directed payment of that amount within a time frame. Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned Government Advocate, would contend that the order dated 29.08.2017 issued by the Principal Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur, was never set aside by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 652 of 2018 and, therefore, the writ petitioner could not claim relief in the light thereof. This argument loses sight of the fact that the said writ petition was disposed of with directions to examine the writ petitioner’s claim again and the implication thereof is that the order dated 29.08.2017, impugned in the said writ petition, stood invalidated. Further, the authorities meekly complied with order and re-examined the issue. If it was their stand that the earlier order dated 29.08.2017 still held the field, there was no necessity for them to have done so. This argument therefore fails. Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned Government Advocate, would argue that there is no evidence of the writ petitioner’s husband having rendered service during the period in question. She would concede that the Headmistress of Moirangkhom Junior High School, Imphal, issued a certificate stating that late H. Nishikanta Singh had worked as an ad-hoc primary teacher till 28.09.2013. Notably, the Headmistress also forwarded the Attendance Registers of the school in proof of his actual attendance during that period. However, Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned Government Advocate, would contend that as a duty roster was not submitted, the Attendance Registers would not be sufficient proof of H. Nishikanta Singh having worked as a primary teacher. This argument does not merit acceptance. It is not the case of the authorities that the Attendance Registers are not genuine. It may be noted that apart from the attendance of H. Nishikanta Singh, the Registers also record the attendance of other teachers. Admittedly, the authorities did examine whether those teachers had duty rosters and it was only H. Nishikanta Singh who had no such duty roster. Having failed to undertake that exercise, it is not open to the authorities to baldly dismiss the Attendance Registers, which clearly record that H. Nishikanta Singh attended the school during the period in question. Further, it is not open to the authorities to claim that H. Nishikanta Singh rendered service in collusion with the then headmaster of the school. Admittedly, no disciplinary action has been initiated against the headmistress who issued the certificate in proof of H. Nishikanta Singh having attended the school till 28.09.2013 and there is no material available for the authorities to doubt the Attendance Registers that she produced. That apart, the authorities cannot blithely claim ignorance of the fact that he was continuing to serve as an ad-hoc teacher during that time. Periodic inspections of all schools are expected to be carried out by the authorities and any irregularity, in terms of a teacher being continued in service without authority, would have come to light immediately during such inspections. Therefore, the authorities cannot now make a self-serving statement that even if H. Nishikanta Singh continued to render service, it was without the approval of the competent authority. The authorities cannot take advantage of their own wrongs and seek to deny the rightful benefits due and payable for services actually rendered. In any event, the fact that 71 other ad-hoc primary teachers filed W.P. (C) No. 1016 of 2014, and the subsequent developments that took place thereon, completely demolishes the stand of the authorities. It was the case of those ad-hoc primary teachers that they were not given extension orders from 01.09.2010 but they continued to render ad-hoc services up to

30.03.2015. Their prayer was for payment of wages for that period. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was carried to the Supreme Court by the authorities but to no avail. In consequence, the Commissioner, Education (s), Government of Manipur, issued order dated 24.04.2019 sanctioning the payment of back wages to these 71 ad-hoc primary teachers for the period

01.09.2010 to 30.03.2015. This litigation clearly demonstrates that the Government of Manipur, be it for whatever reason, discontinued with issuance of extension orders in relation to ad-hoc services of primary school teachers but continued to merrily utilize their services. H. Nishikanta Singh, the husband of the writ petitioner, was therefore identically situated with the 71 ad-hoc primary teachers, whose claims were ultimately accepted by the Government of Manipur. However, for some reason, the State of Manipur and its authorities are bent upon harassing this poor widow and are making her run from pillar to post for the wages rightfully due and payable to her late husband, who faithfully rendered service as a primary teacher almost till his death. No grounds whatsoever are made out to interfere with the order of the Ld. Judge granting her relief, by way of a positive direction that the sum of ₹. 10,24,802/- shall be paid to the writ petitioner, as calculated by the Director, Education (S), Government of Manipur, within a time frame. Significantly, though this Court had directed payment of interest @ 6% p.a. on belated remittance of her entitlement, vide order dated 31.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 652 of 2018, she is now deprived of such benefit. The writ appeal is absolutely bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). The amount payable in terms of the order passed by the Ld. Judge along with the costs imposed by this Court shall be remitted to the respondent/writ petitioner within 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In consequence, MC(WA) No. 110 of 2022 shall also stand dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Indrajeet