Manipur High Court
Smt. Khwairakpam Suchitra Chanu W/O S. … vs The Manipur Pollution Control Board on 2 July, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with
MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with
MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009
Smt. Khwairakpam Suchitra Chanu w/o S. Shantikumar Singh,
a resident of Thangmeiband Meisnam Leikai, P.O. Lamphel,
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West district, Manipur.
... Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The Manipur Pollution Control Board, Imphal.
2. The Chairman, Manipur Pollution Control Board, Imphal.
3. The Member Secretary, Manipur Pollution Control Board, Imphal.
4. The State of Manipur, through the Secretary/ Commissioner (Forest &
Environment), Govt. of Manipur.
... Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioner : Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Kh. Maria, Adv.
For the respondents : Mr. M. Rarry, Sr. Adv. & Ms. M. Nikita, Adv.
Date of hearing : 05.09.2024/17.12.2024/26.05.2025
Date of Judgement : 02.07.2025
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 1 of 18
JUDGEMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
Kh. Maria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Rarry, learned
senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Nikita, learned counsel for the State
respondents.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the impugned
Order bearing No. PCB/234/98-99(Pt.) dated 29.01.2009 issued by the
Member Secretary, Manipur Pollution Control Board, Imphal, being
malicious, arbitrary, vindictive and illegal as the same was issued under
colourable exercise of power and not for the purpose stated in the order.
The brief facts of the case:
[3] The petitioner, Smt. Kh. Suchitra Chanu was appointed as Sr.
Scientific Assistant (SSA) (Contract) in the Manipur Pollution Control Board,
Imphal (MPCB) at the monthly consolidated pay of Rs. 3,000/- until further
orders, vide order dated 09.03.1999 issued by the Member Secretary,
MPCB, Imphal.
[4] It may be noted that by the same order one Smt. Ch. Landhoni
Devi was also appointed as Laboratory Asstt. (Casual) at the consolidated
pay of Rs. 1,549.50/-.
[5] Vide another order dated 01.04.2003 issued by the Member
Secretary, MPCB, the petitioner was appointed as SSA in the scale of Rs.
5000-150-8000/- per month against one of the posts of SSA created, until
further order.
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 2 of 18
[6] The petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.10.2006 to the
Chairman, MPCB for paying her due salaries as SSA in the scale of Rs.
5000-8000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the day she was given regular
appointment to the post of SSA.
[7] Vide O.M. dated 13.11.2006 issued by Member Secretary, MPCB,
all the 35 Casual and 7 Contract Staff of the Board were directed to submit
the “Standard Agreement Format for Engagement on Contract Basis” duly
signed by the concerned employee on or before 17.11.2006, without fail.
[8] The petitioner submitted a representation dated 16.11.2006 to the
Member Secretary, MPCB stating that she had been appointed on regular
basis vide order dated 01.04.2003 in the post of SSA and she was not
required to sign the Standard Agreement Format for Engagement on
contract basis. Thereafter, the Chairman, MPCB issued show cause notice
dated 06.12.2006 to the petitioner for failure to submit “Standard
Agreement Format for Engagement on contract basis” within the stipulated
time and for taking up disciplinary actions for violation of standing order
of the Authority.
[9] The petitioner submitted a reply dated 11.12.2006 to the show
cause notice stating that she had already been appointed in the regular
post of SSA against one of the posts created, in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-
150-8000/- per month, vide order dated 01.04.2003. She was not required
to sign the said ‘Agreement Format’ and requested not to take up any
disciplinary actions for violation of standing order of the Authority.
[10] The petitioner challenged the show cause notice before the then
Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench [now, High Court of Manipur] by way
of writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1138 of 2006. Vide order dated
14.12.2006 in MC(WP(C)) NO. 354 OF 2006, the authorities were directed
not to initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner and theWP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 3 of 18
petitioner could not be subjected to execute the contract agreement until
further orders.
[11] However, on 16.12.2006, the petitioner was served a copy of the
order dated 13.12.2006 issued by the Chairman, MPCB, terminating the
contractual service of her. The petitioner challenged the termination order
dated 13.12.2006 by way of writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1186 of 2006
before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and by vide order dated
05.01.2007, the termination order dated 13.12.2006 was set aside as the
same was passed in violation of the interim order dated 14.12.2006 in
MC(WP(C)) No. 354 of 2006 and the parties were directed to file replies
and rejoinder affidavit.
[12] The 2 (two) writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 1138 of 2006 and
WP(C) No. 1186 of 2006 were heard together and vide common order
dated 23.05.2007, both the writ petitions were dismissed.
It was observed in ‘para no. 13’ of the writ petitions that the order
dated 01.04.2003 could not be considered as a valid and regular
appointment order of the petitioner to the post of Senior Scientific
Assistant and disposed of the writ petitions by giving certain directions in
‘para no. 19’ to treat the petitioner as on contract, which is quoted herein
below:
“(19) Keeping in view of the above said facts and circumstances and
in the interest of justice, these cases being WP(C) No. 1138 of 2006
and WP(C) No. 1186 of 2006 are hereby disposed of in the following
manner:
i) The petitioner shall not be entitled to any of the reliefs claimed
in WP(C) No. 1138 of 2006 and it is hereby dismissed;
ii) The impugned termination order dated 13.12.2006 which was
issued on failure of the petitioner to submit the requiredWP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 4 of 18
format within the prescribed time and after giving her due
notice, is not interfered with;
iii) Further, in the facts and circumstances, it will not be proper
and just not to allow the petitioner to work as Senior 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; and
v) WP(C) No. 1186 of 2006 is also dismissed.”
[13] The petitioner filed 2(two) writ appeals, being W.A. No. 44 of 2007
and W.A. No. 43 of 2007 against the common judgment and order dated
23.05.2007 passed by Ld. Single Judge for disposing the WP(C) No. 1138
of 2006 and WP(C) No. 1186 of 2006, excepting the direction nos. (iii) &
(iv) in para no. 19 of the judgement reproduced above.
[14] During the pendency of the writ appeals, the Member Secretary,
MPCB issued a letter dated 07.06.2008 informing the petitioner to join
service to the post of SSA on contract basis, in compliance of the directions
passed by the Ld. Single Judge in the order dated 23.05.2007 in WP(C)
No. 1138 of 2006 and WP(C) No. 1186 of 2006.
[15] Thereafter, the petitioner was working in the MPCB and she has
been assigned different works by the Authority as per Annexure-A/14
Colly.
[16] It may be noted that earlier there were 35 casual and 7 contract
employees holding different nomenclature of posts in the MPCB. Out of 35
casual employees, 3 employees were already relinquished their services.
The remaining 32 casual employees were converted into contract service.
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 5 of 18
Thereby, there are 39 (32 + 7) contract employees and all of them were
appointed during the period 1997 to 1999. The details of the 39 contract
employees of the MPCB is listed in Annexure-A/15 and the name of the
petitioner is at Sl. No. 2, under the designation of SSA and date of
engagement in 09.03.1999.
[17] Vide order dated 27.08.2008 in WA No. 43 of 2007 and WA No. 44
of 2007, while disposing the writ appeals, the Division Bench of the Gauhati
High Court, Imphal Bench directed the MPCB to pay back-wages to the
petitioner for the period from 13.12.2006 to 24.03.2008 within a period of
2(two) months and deprecated the officers of the respondents of issuing
a back dated termination order dated 13.12.2006 in violation of the interim
order dated 14.12.2006 issued by the Ld. Single Judge protecting the
service of the petitioner.
[18] The petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.11.2008 to the
Chairman, MPCB and the Secretary, MPCB for compliance of the Division
Bench order dated 27.08.2008 passed in WA Nos. 43 and 44 of 2007 for
payment of wages to her.
[19] When the directions of the Division Bench order for payment of
wages back was not complied, the petitioner filed a contempt case, being
Cont. Case (C) No. 170 of 2008 against the Chairman, MPCB & Member
Secretary, MPCB and the Court issued notice dated 29.11.2008 to the
contemnors.
[20] Vide the impugned order dated 29.01.2009 issued by the Member
Secretary, MPCB, the contractual service of the petitioner as SSA in MPCB
on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 2652/- per month was discontinued
w.e.f. 01.03.2009, as her service was no longer required in the MPCB.
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 6 of 18
[21] Thereafter, the MPCB issued advertisement dated 21.06.2004 and
27.11.2006 for appointment of SSAs and other different posts. However,
no appointment was made in respect of the posts of SSAs.
[22] By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenged the
termination order dated 29.01.2009 on the following grounds:
a) The petitioner, who has 10 years’ experience and possesses
necessary qualification has been victimized by the Authority for
filing cases against the Authority, including contempt case.
b) The impugned termination order was issued mala fide with
ulterior oblique motive and in colourable exercise of power and
not for the professed purpose mentioned in the impugned
order.
c) Only the petitioner has been singled out and none of the
services of the 39 contract employees were disturbed.
d) After utilizing the service of the petitioner for 10 years, now,
the respondents cannot say that her service is no longer
required.
e) The respondents have violated the rules of natural justice as
no opportunity of being heard was given to her before the
termination order.
f) The impugned order of termination is in violation of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
[23] It is prayed that to issue writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing
the impugned order dated 29.01.2009 terminating the service of the
petitioner and pass an appropriate direction as deem, fit and proper in the
interest of justice.
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 7 of 18
[24] Vide order dated 27.02.2009 in WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 while
issuing notice to the respondents, this Court stayed the impugned order
29.01.2009 until further order. When the petitioner was not allowed to
sign the daily attendance register even after the passing of the interim
order dated 27.02.2009, she filed another application being MC(WP(C))
No. 87 of 2009 praying for stay of the impugned order dated 29.01.2009
and also for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to sign
the Daily Attendance Register and perform her normal duties. Vide order
dated 11.05.2009 in MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009, the impugned order dated
20.01.2009 was stayed till 25.05.2009. The matter was taken up on
06.05.2009 and was reserved for order. Interim order has been extended
from time to time. The petitioner also filed an application being MC(WP(C))
No. 106 of 2009 praying for a direction to the respondents to accept the
letter dated 14.05.2009 submitted by her to allow her to sign attendance
register and to perform her normal work or direct the registry to serve a
copy of order dated 11.05.2009 to the respondents.
[25] When none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 26.02.2019,
this Court dismissed the writ petition and pending applications, i.e., WP(C)
No. 121 of 2009 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 87 of 2009 & 106 of 2009 for non-
prosecution. The petitioner filed applications- (i) MC(WP(C)) No. 197 of
2021 for restoration and (ii) MC(WP(C)) No. 198 of 2021 for condonation
of 351 days in filing the restoration application. Vide order dated
16.02.2022 in MC(WP(C)) No. 197 of 2021, this Court condoned the delay
of 351 days with a cost of Rs.2000/- in favour of High Court Bar
Association, Manipur. By another order dated 16.02.2022 in MC(WP(C))
No. 197 of 2021, this Court restored the writ petition and pending
applications, i.e., WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 and MC(WP(C)) Nos. 87 of 2009
& 106 of 2009 and the same were taken on record. It is submitted that
the petitioner is still working in MPCB in terms of the earlier interim order.
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 8 of 18
[26] The respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 submitted a common counter
affidavit and denied the averments made in the writ petition.
i) The respondents raise the question of maintainability of the
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
termination of the petitioner contractual service by the
impugned order dated 29.01.2009 as the same was done by
expiry of the tenure of the contractual period.
ii) By the agreement and undertaking dated 25.03.2008 submitted
by the petitioner, her contractual service expired on 28.02.2009
automatically.
iii) The extraordinary power under Art. 226 of the Constitution
cannot be involved in the matter of contract and casual
engagement to be determined by the administrative authority.
iv) The impugned termination order dated 29.01.2009 does not
violate any of the fundamental right.
v) Appointment dehors the rules against non-existent post,
termination of service without compliance is not required
(1997) 1 GLT 167 para 12.
vi) Cancellation of irregular appointment without providing
opportunity of hearing to the appointees, natural justice is not
required to be complied (2002(1) GLT 63 para 12. and 2000(7)
SCC 529).
vii) (a) A writ petition not entertain to enforce a right which is
founded purely on contract, AIR 1966 SC 334, 337.
(b) Contractual obligations even incorrect by the public servant
cannot be enforced by mandamus, AIR 1977 SC 1496 para 23,
35.
viii) Government cannot use its executive power to circumvent
requirement of statutory rules- Contract employees cannot
claim regularization for having continued for long years as
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 9 of 18
appointment were dehors the rules, 1998(1) GLT 219 para 14,
17.
ix) Service rule does not envisage negative equality- appointment
made illegally in certain case did not confer any right illegally
(2006(1) GLT 771 para 15).
x) In order to acquire the right to hold a post, a person must be
appointed regularly (1998(1) GLT 137 Para 5, 8)
xi) Termination of service on closure of project is valid (1998(3)
GLT 450 Para 9, 13).
[27] On merit, it is stated that the petitioner was earlier appointed on
contractual basis as held by the earlier decisions of the Ld. Single Judge
and Division Bench. The petitioner was held not to be appointed on regular
basis and she was bound to sign the agreement format for engagement
on contract basis. Her termination was on expiry of the period of
engagement on 28.01.2009. By the undertaking submitted by the
petitioner, her contract service was from 25.03.2008 to 28.02.2009 and
the termination order dated 28.01.2009 was issued as her contractual
period was expired. She has no inherent right of extending her service
beyond the contractual period. It is made that the writ petition is dismissed
and is not maintainable and devoid of merit.
[28] The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit and reiterated the
contentions of the writ petition stating that:
i) She was initially appointed in the post of SSA on contract basis
vide order dated 09.09.1999 and her service was regularized
vide order dated 01.04.2023 by giving regular pay scale. While
dismissing the 2(two) earlier writ petitions filed by the
petitioner, the Hon’ble Court directed the respondents to pass
an appropriate order by allowing her to serve as SSA onWP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 10 of 18
contract basis as done in the case of other persons employed
in the MPCB as so long as the concerned post is not filled up
on regular basis or till her service is required.
ii) It is stated that vide order dated 17.11.2016 issued by Member
Secretary, MPCB, services of 35 (thirty five) persons including
one Shri A. Kangkeshwar Sharma was regularized as SSA in the
pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200+ GP Rs. 2800 and one person,
Smt. Ch. Landhoni Devi, who was appointed initially along with
the petitioner was also regularized by the same order to the
post of Laboratory Assistant (LA) and their names are shown in
Sl. No. 2 and 7 of the said order.
Only the petitioner was left out from the said regularization
order dated 17.11.2016. Since, other persons accepted the
regularization of the petitioner in the MPCB. The contentions of
the MPCB that service was no longer required. Hence, no
foundation and the order has been victimized.
iii) The decision of the Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] will not
applicable in the present case, only the petitioner has been
victimized and singled out, while the services of the 35
contractual employees of the MPCB were regularized by the
State. The scenario of the petitioner is in violation of the
fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
[29] Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned sr. counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was appointed as SSA on contract basis in the office of
MPCB and her service was deemed to be regularized vide order dated
01.04.2003 against a newly created vacant post of SSA. However, the
petitioner claimed that she has already been regularized to the post of SSA
by this order dated 01.04.2003. However, in the earlier writ petitions, the
petitioner challenged the show cause and earlier termination order. Both
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 11 of 18
the Ld. Single Judge and Division Bench held that order dated 01.04.2003
cannot be considered as regular appointment of the petitioner to the post
of SSA and she was permitted to join after submitting the format for
engagement on contract employee. Accordingly, she was taken back to
the SSA on contractual basis in the MPCB. However, when the services of
the others contractual employees are extended and her service was
discontinued by impugned order dated 29.01.2009 without assigning any
reasons on the ground that her service was no longer required.
[30] The learned sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of
the respondents is that the service of the petitioner is no longer required
without any basis. Learned sr. counsel draws the attention of this Court to
a common order dated 17.11.2016 by which the services of 35 contract
employees of different grades were regularized including the post of SSA
and also one Smt. Ch. Landhoni Devi, who was initially appointed along
with the petitioner by a same order in the year 1999. The stand of the
petitioner is discriminatory without any basis and she has been singled out
and victimized for filing cases including contempt case against the
respondents. The learned sr. counsel has referred to the following
Judgement:
i) (2013) 8 SCC 345 (Para 29- & 30)
Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited and Ors.
-Vs-
Parth Sarathi Sen Roy and Ors.
ii) (2011) 2 SCC 258 (Para 80)
Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association
-Vs-
Designated Authority and Ors.
iii)1993 Supp (4) SCC 46 (Para 9)
Naseem Bano
-Vs-
The State of U.P. and Ors.
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 12 of 18
[31] It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and service of
the petitioner may be extended and she may be retained and considered
for regularization in the case of similar situated persons vide order dated
17.11.2016, in which the services of the 35 contractual employees were
regularized.
[32] On the other hand, Mr. M. Rarry, learned sr. counsel representing
the State respondents submits that the petitioner was engaged as SSA
purely on contract basis, vide order dated 09.03.1999 and she cannot claim
regularization.
[33] It is also submitted that impugned order dated 29.01.2009 was
issued as the contractual period was over and the service of the petitioner
in the MPCB was no longer required. The allegation of the arbitrary and
discriminatory actions against the petitioner is not established and is
merely an accusation.
[34] The learned sr. counsel for the State respondents has rightly
pointed out that in earlier ground, the Ld. Single Judge and Division Bench
of the then Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench held that order dated
01.04.2003 issued by the MPCB did not confer any regularization of the
contractual service and she was allowed to continue in contractual service
on the submission of format agreement for engagement on contract basis.
[35] It is also submitted that no show cause notice is required to be
issued while issuing the disengagement order as the impugned order dated
29.01.2009 was issued formally to indicate that the contractual service of
the petitioner to be disengaged due to the expiry of the contractual period.
[36] The learned sr. counsel for the State respondents submits that the
following judgment:
i) (1991) 1 SCC 691 Para 6, 7 (3J)
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 13 of 18
State Of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. -vs- Kaushal Kishore Shukla
ii) (1992) 4 SCC 33 Para 20 (3J)
Director, Institute Of Management Development U.P. -vs- Smt.
Pushpa Srivastava
iii) (2006) 12 SCC 482 Para 4
Vidyavardhaka Sangha -vs- Y. D. Deshpande
iv) (2004) 1 SCC 347 Para 26
Government of West Bengal -vs- Tarun K. Roy and Ors.
v) (2014) 9 SCC 737 (55)
Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq -vs- The Reg., Supreme Court of India &
Ors.
vi) (2016) 6 SCC 391 (3J) Para 10 & 11.
vii) (2004) 1 SCC 551 Para 11
viii) (2021) 9 SCC 99 Para 25
[37] This Court have perused the materials available on record, the
submissions made at the bar and the decisions cited by the parties.
[38] It is seen that the petitioner was earlier appointed as SSA
(Contract) vide order dated 09.03.1999 along with one Smt. Ch. Landhoni
Devi, as LA (Casual) in the MPCB and the Member Secretary of the MPCB
issued an order dated 01.04.2003 appointing the petitioner as SSA in the
scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000/- per month against one of the posts of SSA
created, until further order.
[39] On the basis of the order dated 01.04.2003, the petitioner refused
to comply the O.M. dated 13.11.2006 issued by the Member Secretary,
MPCB directing all the 35 Casual and 7 Contract Staff of the Board to
submit the “Standard Agreement Format for Engagement on contract
basis” for which she was issued show cause notice and she challenged the
same by filing writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1138 of 2006 before the
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 14 of 18
Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and vide order dated 14.12.2006 an
interim order was passed by the Ld. Single Judge protecting her and
directing the respondents not to initiate any disciplinary action and not to
subject the petitioner to execute the contract agreement until further
orders.
[40] However, vide order dated 13.12.2006 the service of the petitioner
was terminated for failure to sign the contract agreement. The petitioner
also challenged the termination order by way of writ petitions, being WP(C)
No. 1138 of 2006. Both the writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 1138 of 2006
and WP(C) No. 1186 of 2006 were disposed of by common order dated
23.05.2007 holding that the order dated 01.04.2003 issued by the MPCB
did not amount to appointment of the petitioner in regular basis to the
post of SSA and the respondents were directed to take her to contractual
employee on submission of the execution of the contract agreement.
[41] In the order dated 27.08.2008 in WA 43 of 2007 and WA No. 44 of
2007, the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court observed that the
termination order dated 13.12.2006 was issued back dated in defiance of
the interim order dated 14.12.2006 and directed the respondents to
release the back wages of the petitioner.
[42] The petitioner also filed contempt case against the officers of the
MPCB for non-compliance of the Division Bench directions. It is the case
of the petitioner that she has been victimized and her contractual service
was terminated vide order dated 29.01.2009 only on the ground that her
service was no longer required.
[43] On the other hand, the respondents have extended the contractual
services of the 39 contractual employees from time to time and later on,
services of 35 contractual employees were regularized in different posts
vide order dated 17.11.2016 and in the order at Sl. No. 2, one Shri. A.
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 15 of 18
Kangkeshwor Sharma was shown as regularized against the post of SSA
and one, Smt. Ch. Landhoni Devi, who was initially appointed along with
the petitioner by the same order in the year 1999 was also regularized as
LA.
[44] From the above, it seems that only the petitioner has been singled
out and disengaging her from contractual employee as well as from the
regularization of the service in MPCB. The only reason given in the
impugned order dated 29.01.2009 that her service was no longer required
in the MPCB, does not carry any convincing explanation as one, Shri. A.
Kangkeshwor Sharma was regularized in the post of SSA as late as in the
year, 2016. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was
disengaged due to her inefficiency.
[45] In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the MPCB, which
is an authority under the control of the Government of Manipur within the
meaning of State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution, is at least
expected to act fairly to all contractual employees while their services are
considered for extension or regularization. In the present case, while the
services of the 39 contractual employees (except the petitioner) were
extended from time to time and 35 contractual employees were (except
the petitioner) regularized and the reason given in the impugned order
dated 29.01.2009 that the service of the petitioner was no longer required
in the MPCB, cannot be sustained. Perhaps, this Court finds substance in
the submission of the learned sr. counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has been victimized for filing cases including contempt case
against the respondents. It may be noted that the Division Bench of the
then Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench (now, High Court of Manipur)
passed stricture against the respondent authority for issuing back dated
order of termination in defiance of stay order passed by the court. There
are many instances where the petitioner was not allowed to join office,
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 16 of 18
even after the termination order dated 29.01.2009 was stayed by this
Court in orders dated 27.02.2009 & 11.05.2009. On a bare glance of the
case record, it is ample clear that the respondent-MPCB has made up its
mind to punish and victimize the petitioner anyhow and that too in total
disregard of this Court’s order on uncountable occasions. Even the Division
Bench of the then Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench (now, High Court of
Manipur) indicted the officials of MPCB in order dated 27.08.2008 in WA
Nos. 43 of 2007 & 44 of 2007 for flouting court’s order intentionally and
by issuing back dated termination order dated 13.12.2006 to circumvent
the interim order dated 14.12.2006 protecting the service of the petitioner.
The officials were compelled to tender unconditional apology to the Court.
It is crystal clear that the officials of Manipur Pollution Control Board are
determined to punish the petitioner anyhow, even inviting the contempt
proceeding for defiance of court’s orders.
[46] This Court is of the view that the decision of respondents in not
extending the contractual service of the petition alone as not required
while extending service of other contract staff and their subsequent
regularization, is nothing but clear case of vindictiveness, arbitrary exercise
of executive power by State entity and abuse of administrative discretion.
It may be relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Iron & Metal Traders v. Haskiel: (1984) 1 SCC 304 where
many strikers were reinstated by the Management, few of the strikers were
dismissed from service. It was held that the action of singling out of the
some of the strikers for drastic action while others were reinstated is a
clear case of discrimination. In the case of State of UP v. Committee of
Management: (2010) 1 SCC 639, it was held that State action of
creating class within class violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The
present case is a classic example of singling out of the petitioner even in
defiance of court’s orders on numerous occasions and the same is in clear
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 17 of 18
violation of the equality clause enshrined in the Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Such deviant State action ought to be nipped in the
bud and should not be allowed to bloom, otherwise this Court will be failing
in its duty as a protector of the rule of law.
[47] In the circumstances, this Court sets aside the impugned order
dated 29.01.2009 and the respondents are directed to date back the
service of the petitioner as Sr. Scientific Assistant (SSA) on contract basis
in the MPCB.
[48] It has been informed during the course of hearing that vide order
dated 20.06.2017 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 161 of 2017, MPCB
was directed to regularize the service of the petitioner in terms of the order
dated 17.11.2016 as done for similarly situated 35 contract employees.
The review petition being Rev. Pet. No. 20 of 2017 filed by MPCB was also
dismissed on 03.12.2019. Against these orders, the appeals being WA Nos.
43 of 2017 and 124 of 2022 are pending before the Division Bench of this
Court about the regularization of the service of the petitioner.
[49] In the circumstances, this Court refrains from expressing any
opinion about the merit of the case for regularization of the service of the
petitioner and the present order is confined to the question of termination
of the contractual service.
[50] In terms of the above, writ petition is allowed. Misc. applications
are also disposed of. Interim orders stand merged with the final order. No
cost.
OINAM Digitally signed by
THOIBA OINAM THOIBA MEITEI
Date: 2025.07.02
JUDGE
MEITEI 15:02:56 +05'30'
FR/NFR
Thoiba
WP(C) No. 121 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 106 of 2009 with MC(WP(C)) No. 87 of 2009 Page 18 of 18