Similarly Situated Employees Under Same Employer Must Be Treated Equally: Manipur HC

Background

Shri Thongam Homendro Singh and Shri William Maram were appointed as Assistant Project Officers (APOs) on a contractual basis in District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Senapati. After six years of service, they were promoted to Project Officers (POs). This promotion was backed by recommendations from a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and was also approved by the State Government in May 2016.

However, when the State began absorbing the DRDA staff into their Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department later that year, Singh and Maram were regularized as APOs instead of POs. This was in contrast to other similarly situated employees, who were being absorbed into their promoted positions. Singh and Maram challenged this, arguing that the State's action violated the principle of equality. Thus, they filed a writ petition seeking correction of the absorption order.

Arguments

Singh and Maram argued that their absorption as APOs, despite their prior promotion to POs, was arbitrary and discriminatory. Referring to Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair v. Cochin University of Science and Technology (Civil Appeal No. 6994 of 2021) and Union of India v. Munshi Ram (2022 LiveLaw (SC)891), they argued that similarly situated employees under the same employer must be treated equally. They asserted that they are entitled to absorption as POs, as their promotion was based on a valid DPC recommendation and government approval.

The State argued that the applicable recruitment rules required a minimum of four years of service as APO before being promoted as PO. They explained that Singh and Maram's service was contractual, and could not be counted towards the required tenure. They also focused on a representation by the DRDA Employees' Association in 2016, which included a list of contractual staff listing Singh and Maram's designation as APO. Basis this, they argued that the Association itself had requested the absorption of the petitioners as APO and not PO.

Court's Findings

Firstly, the court examined whether Singh and Maram's absorption into a lower post was discriminatory. It noted that other DRDA employees, who were similarly promoted, had been absorbed into their rightfully promoted positions. The court rejected the argument that Singh and Maram's service was contractual and could not be counted for calculating service tenure. It noted that such scrutiny was not applied to any other employee.

Secondly, the court dismissed the State's reliance on the 2016 DRDA Employees' Association representation. It ruled that the list merely identified the petitioners as "APO", and did not place any request for their absorption as "APO". The court clarified that it was simply a record of those who appeared before the DPC, without any comment on absorption.

Lastly, the court invoked the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution. It cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyam Kumar (SLP(C) No. 25609/2018) to reiterate that there cannot be any discrimination among similarly situated employees. Thus, the court concluded that the state's actions in this case were discriminatory, as Singh and Maram were singled out for differential treatment without any reasonable basis.

Thus, the court allowed the writ petition. It directed the State to amend the absorption order and create supernumerary posts for Singh and Maram accordingly.

Decided on: 27-12-2024

Case No. WP(C) No. 500 of 2018

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Shyam Sharma

Click Here To Read/Download The Order