Can’t Deny Benefit to Some Employees When All Other Similarly Situated Staff Are Absorbed & Regularised To Their Promoted Post: Manipur HC
The Manipur High Court recently granted relief to two employees of DRDA by ordering their absorption to the post of Project Officer after taking note of the fact that except for the petitioners, all other similarly situated staff were absorbed and regularised to their promoted post.
The High Court further reiterated that similarly placed persons are to be treated equally.
The Signle-Judge Bench of Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma said, “There is no reason to deny the petitioners from their absorption as Project Officer in RD & PR. Singling out the petitioners cannot be sustained.”
Advocate Anjan Prasad Sahu represented the Petitioners while Government Advocate Shyam Sharma represented the Respondents.
The petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Project Officer (APO) on contract basis in the NREGA Wing of DRDA, Senapati. In a partial modification of the earlier order, the petitioners were engaged as APO on a contract basis. The Joint Secretary (RD & PR) sent a letter to the Executive Director (DRDA) wherein it was stated that there was excess number of staff at various positions under DRDA, 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. The petitioners were later appointed as Project Officers on promotion on regular basis in DRDA, Senapati.
In the year 2016, 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 to the DC/Executive Director for absorption as Project Officer as done in the case of similarly situated incumbents. However, the representation submitted by the petitioner has been pending with the authorities.
It was the case of the respondents that the experience gained by the petitioners as APO in the DRDA on a contract basis cannot be counted as experience for promotion to the post of Project Officer in the Department of RD & PR. It was also brought to the Court’s notice that the petiitoners’ appointment by promotion was treated as cancelled on the ground of being appointed as APO on a regular basis in the RD & PR, DRDA-Wing by a clarification letter. The Petitioners however disputed the same.
The main issue involved in these appeals was whether whether the petitioners herein were 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.
The Bench noted that 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. “At the expenses of repetitions, it may be emphasised that similarly placed persons are to be treated equally”, it said.
Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyam Kumar (2024) wherein it has been held that benefits must be extended to all those who fall within the parameter of a policy.
The Bench observed that by making a comprehensible scheme, staff of the various DRDAs in Manipur had been absorbed in RD & PR on a regular basis. “Except for the petitioners, all other similarly situated staff were absorbed and regularised to their promoted post”, it added.
It was further noticed that 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 a regular basis on the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC.
Considering such factual aspects, the Bench said, “There is no reason to deny the petitioners from their absorption as Project Officer in RD & PR. Singling out the petitioners cannot be sustained.”
Thus, allowing the Writ Petition, the Bench held that the designation of the petitioners as shown in the absorption order issued by the Secretary (RD & PR), Govt. of Manipur is to be treated and read as “Project Officer” 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”, it clarified.
Cause Title: Shri Thongam Homendro Singh & Anr. v. State Manipur & Ors. (Case No.: WP(C) No. 500 of 2018)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Anjan Prasad Sahu
Respondents: Government Advocate Shyam Sharma