Manipur HC Orders - Equal Treatment to be given for similarly situated Employees

Post By 24law
February 19, 2025

Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Manipur has ruled that two Assistant Project Officers (APOs), who had been unfairly absorbed into a lower post despite prior promotion, must be treated equally to similarly situated employees. The court directed the State of Manipur to absorb Shri Thongam Homendro Singh and Shri William Maram into the position of Project Officers (POs), rectifying the initial absorption into a lower post in the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. This decision highlights the court's emphasis on the equal treatment of employees under the same employer.

Background

Singh and Maram were initially appointed as Assistant Project Officers (APOs) on a contractual basis by the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) in Senapati. After six years of service, both were promoted to Project Officers (POs) based on the recommendations of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), with the approval of the State Government in May 2016. However, when the State began absorbing DRDA staff into the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Singh and Maram were regularized as APOs, in contrast to their peers who were absorbed into their promoted positions. The employees contested this action, arguing that it violated the principle of equality.

Singh and Maram’s counsel argued that their absorption into the lower post was both arbitrary and discriminatory. Citing precedents like Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Union of India v. Munshi Ram, they asserted that similarly situated employees must be treated equally under the law. Since their promotion to POs was valid and approved by the government, they argued, they were entitled to absorption in that position.

The State countered, stating that the applicable recruitment rules required a minimum of four years of service as an APO before promotion to a PO. The State further claimed that Singh and Maram’s service was contractual and could not be counted towards the necessary tenure. Additionally, the State referred to a representation from the DRDA Employees' Association in 2016, which listed Singh and Maram as APOs and requested their absorption accordingly.

The court carefully examined the arguments and found that the State’s action was discriminatory. It observed that other similarly situated employees who had been promoted to POs were absorbed in their promoted positions, while Singh and Maram were unfairly downgraded. The court also rejected the State’s argument that their service was contractual and did not count towards their tenure. The State had not applied the same scrutiny to other employees' services.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the State’s reliance on the 2016 representation by the DRDA Employees' Association. It clarified that the list simply identified the petitioners as APOs without suggesting their absorption into the same role. The representation had no bearing on their legal entitlement to be absorbed as POs.

The court invoked Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing the principle of equal treatment. It referred to the case State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyam Kumar, reinforcing the idea that there must be no discrimination among similarly situated employees.

The court concluded that the State’s actions were discriminatory and violated the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment. As a result, the writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the State to amend the absorption order and create supernumerary posts for Singh and Maram. This ruling reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fairness and equality in public sector employment.