Manipur High Court
Md.Yahiya Khan vs State Of Manipur on 19 December, 2024
Author: A.Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A.Guneshwar Sharma
76-77
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No.346 of 2023 with
WP(C) No.345 of 2022
Md.Yahiya Khan ... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Manipur ... Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA
19.12.2024
Heard Mr.L.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.Sukumar, learned GA for the State respondents.
The petitioner was initially engaged as Casual Forest
Guard on Muster Roll basis vide order dated 28.12.1992 w.e.f.
14.12.1992 to 13.3.1993 and by another order dated 12.1.1994, his
engagement was extended for another period w.e.f. 10.1.1991 to
9.4.1994. By the impugned order dated 28.5.2019 passed by the
Under Secretary, Forest, Government of Manipur, the case of the
petitioner and another person, for promotion, was rejected. The
petitioner has no record of engagement as Casual Forest Guard
under Muster Roll, for a period of seventeen years, i.e. from
10.4.1994 to 14.1.2011 in any Forest Office. Being aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 28.5.2019 rejecting representation for
regularization of the petitioner, approached this Court for a direction
to regularise his casual/muster roll service as Forest Guard.
Mr.L.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that vide order dated 14.1.2011 issued by the Principal Chief
Conservator, Manipur, petitioner was engaged as Casual Forest
Guard and placed at the disposal of the office of the Forest Division-
IV with immediate effect and until further orders.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws attention
of this Court to two duty certificates dated 14.1.2014 and
27.10.2016 certifying that the petitioner was working in the Forest
Division-IV as casual Forest Guard. Mr.Raju, learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that respondents may be directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation considering his
continuous engagement since 14.1.2021.
Mr.Sukumar, learned GA submits that this Court may
pass an innocuous order directing the State respondents to consider
the case of the petitioner w.e.f. 14.1.2021 as submitted by the
petitioner. However, learned GA clarifies that the order dated
12.6.2017 (Annexure A/15) regularizing 37 casual employees of the
Forest Department was as per direction of the Hon’ble High Court
as well as Supreme Court.
Recording the submissions made at the Bar and with
the alternative relief prayed for by the petitioner, during the course
of hearing, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the State
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation
under any Scheme or Rules, if any, available and while doing so,
State may examine whether the petitioner is actually in service or
not.
Petitioner may also furnish any additional document
for consideration.
The State respondents may also examine whether the
petitioner is still in service or not.
With these observations and direction, the writ petition
is disposed of. The while exercise may be completed within a period
of three months from the date of receipt a copy of this order.
WP(C) No.345 of 2022
Mr.Areng Chiru Vs State of Manipur.
19.12.2024
Heard Mr.L.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.Sukumar, learned GA for the State respondents.
The petitioner was engaged as casual Forest Guard
under Muster Roll, vide order dated 7.11.1992 issued by the
Conservator of Forest, Government of Manipur, until further orders.
The petitioner and another, filed representation for
regularisation of their casual services. However, by the impugned
order dated 28.5.2019, representation of the petitioner was rejected
on the ground that as per Duty Certificate dated 4.9.2017 the
petitioner served till August, 2013 under Churachandpur Division
and petitioner discontinued service in the department.
As per Duty Certificate at Annexure A/19 and A/20 the
petitioner was serving till 31.3.2019 and the petitioner has
completed ten years of continuous service as casual worker and he
is eligible for regularisation as directed in the order dated
19.12.2024 in WP(C) No.346 of 2022.
Mr.Sukumar, learned GA has clarified that Duty Slip ad
Annexures A/19 and A/20 have been issued by the officer in their
personal capacity and they are not the DDOs concerned.
Respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularisation, in terms of any scheme or rules.
Petitioner may also furnish any additional document
for consideration.
The State respondents may also examine whether the
petitioner is still in service or not.
With these observations and direction, the writ petition
is disposed of. The while exercise may be completed within a period
of three months from the date of receipt a copy of this order.
JUDGE
Priyojit
Digitally signed
RAJKUMA by RAJKUMAR
R PRIYOJIT PRIYOJIT SINGH
Date: 2024.12.21
SINGH 11:39:38 +05'30'
