LAISHRAM NABACHANDRA SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri L. Shashibhushan, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri K. Jagat, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) 1. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as Investigator on ad -hoc basis for a period of 6 (six) months in the Planning Section (Nucleus Cell), Department of Commerce and Industries vide order dated 20 -10 -1984 issued by the Director of Industries, Government of Manipur along with three others and his ad -hoc service was extended from time to time. Later on, in terms of the policy decision of the State Government for regularisation of ad -hoc services vide Office Memorandum dated 31 -05 -1986, the ad -hoc appointment of the petitioner was regularised to the post of Investigator (Nucleus Cell) vide order dated 24 -09 -1986 issued by the Director of Industries, Government of Manipur.

(3.) IT is submitted by Shri L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is still discharging his duties as Statistical Supervisor from the day his ad -hoc service as Assistant Director was not extended and was reverted to his substantive post and he has not been removed from his service at all. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is rendering service, he is entitled to his pay & allowances and that the act of the respondents denying him his pay & allowances is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory because the other three Statistical Supervisors who were appointed along with the petitioner and are junior to him, are being paid their pay & allowances regularly. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lakhan Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in, 1994 SCC (L & S) 1128(I). On the other hand, Shri K. Jagat, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not seriously disputed the averments made by the petitioner in the present writ petition and the only thing he did was that he took the stand as stated in the affidavit -in -opposition and contended that since no fund was released by the Government of India, no pay & allowances could be given to the petitioner.