Manipur HC Upholds Equal Treatment for Similarly Situated DRDA Employees in Absorption Row
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Manipur, in its judgment dated December 27, 2024, resolved a dispute concerning the absorption and regularization of two contract employees under the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (RD & PR) Department. The court directed that the petitioners, who had been promoted to the position of Project Officers in the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Senapati, be absorbed and regularized at their promoted posts instead of the lower post of Assistant Project Officers (APOs).
The petitioners were appointed on a contract basis as Assistant Project Officers in the DRDA, Senapati, through an order dated January 4, 2010. Following a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) review in 2016, they were promoted to Project Officers on a regular basis. This promotion was formalized by an order dated May 9, 2016.
Subsequently, when the State of Manipur absorbed 80 contract employees from DRDAs into RD & PR on November 18, 2016, under a regularization scheme, the petitioners were regularized at the lower post of APOs, contrary to the treatment given to similarly situated employees who were absorbed in their promoted posts. The petitioners submitted several representations to correct the discrepancy, including a letter from the Deputy Commissioner/Executive Director of DRDA, Senapati, dated December 28, 2016. However, no corrective action was taken.
The respondents contended that the petitioners did not fulfill the required tenure in their promoted posts and argued that contractual service could not be counted toward eligibility for regularization at the higher post. Additionally, they referred to a 2016 representation from the Direct Recruit District Rural Development Agency Employees' Union that listed the petitioners as APOs, which they claimed supported the petitioners' absorption at that level.
The High Court noted that the petitioners were duly promoted to Project Officers after a valid DPC process and that their absorption at the lower level was an anomaly. The court rejected the respondents' argument, observing that the representation listing the petitioners as APOs merely reflected their designation at the time of the DPC and did not negate their subsequent promotions.
“Authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose in such circumstances,” the court stated, emphasizing that similarly situated employees must be treated equally. The court referred to precedents from the Supreme Court, including The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyam Kumar and Union of India v. Munshi Ram, which stated the principle of parity in employment and equal treatment for similarly situated employees.
The court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directives:
- The petitioners' designations in the absorption order dated November 18, 2016, are to be corrected to "Project Officer" instead of "Assistant Project Officer."
- The petitioners are entitled to the pay, allowances, and other service benefits attached to the post of Project Officer with effect from November 18, 2016.
- If no vacant posts were available at the relevant time, the State was directed to create supernumerary posts to accommodate the petitioners.
The court ordered that these directions are to be implemented without delay, ensuring parity in absorption and regularization.
Case Title: Thongam Homendro Singh & Another v. The State of Manipur & Others
Case Number: WP(C) No. 500 of 2018
Bench : Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma
[View/Download order]
