AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S., CJ
[1] Heard Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr.A.Bimol, learned senior counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners.
[2] The State has filed this appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P(C) No.589 of 2015 on 15.11.2016 allowing the writ petition filed by the two writ petitioners/respondents with the direction to State appellants to consider the proposal contained in letters dated 16.11.2010, 17.07.2012 and 16.12.2013 for conversion of the appointment of the petitioners to regular establishment taking note of the fact that the respondent/writ petitioners have been working under the scheme since 1993. The learned Single Judge also in para No.20 quashed the communication dated 02.12.2014 (Annexure-A/20) in the writ petition and notice dated 29.06.2015 (Annexure-A/21) in the writ petition as illegal and consequentially, directed payment of salaries to the respondents/writ petitioners till the period they have been rendering service continuously.
[3] Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows:-
On 07.10.1993, on the recommendation of a Selection Committee held on 25.11.1992 and government approval letter dated 20th September, 1993, six persons including the two respondents/writ petitioners were appointed to the post of Project Officers on consolidated salary/honoraria on contract basis for a period of six months at block level under I.R.E.P. Programme, Directorate of Science & Technology and Environment, Old Lambulane, Imphal. They are assigned different places of posting. This was a special programme for rural development under the Integrated Rural Energy Programme. After appointment, these two respondents/writ petitioners along with four other Project Officers, 8(eight) junior engineers and 11 LDC performed their duties at the district level at I.R.E.P. Besides in the State level department also officers were appointed in the I.R.E.P. cell. For clarity, details of persons appointed on contract basis and thereafter, appointed on regular basis as at Annexure/G-4 is extracted :-
"B. THE DETAILS OF APPOINTMENT OF 6(SIX) POSTS AS REGULAR OF STATE LEVEL IREP CELL:
Sl. No
Name of person absorbed/recruited with name of post
Name of parent Dept. from which tranfer
Mode or recruitment
Appointment order No. & date
1.
Md. Abdul Hasim Grade-IV
-
Direct recruitment
No.1/1897-Dev (MC) dtd.16/4/1988(copy enclosed at Annexure-iii)
2.
Smt. Y. Ibethoi Devi LDC
-
Direct recruitment
No.1/30/86- STE(Pt.I) dtd.28/9/1990(copy enclosed at Annexure-IV)
3.
Shri Sanasam Shantanu Singh Stenographe
-
Direct recruitment
No.1/30/86- STE(Pt.I) dtd.8/3/1991(copy enclosed at Annexure-V)
4.
Shri Khomdram Cha Romesh Investigator
Planning Department
Absorption after the deputation
No.1/68/89-STE(Pt) dtd.15/01/1993(copy enclosed at Annexure-VI)
5.
Shri Ng. Biren Singh Project Officer
Industry Department
Absorption after the deputation
No.1/7/96-STE dtd.19/8/1996(copy enclosed at Annexure-VII)
6.
Shri K. Baleshwor Singh Investigator
-
Direct recruitment
No.2/4/91-DST (Esst) Pt-I dtd.18/6/1999(copy enclosed at Annexure-VIII)
[4] The respondents/writ petitioners and others continue to perform their duties at the district level. Their services were being extended from time to time. The Project continues from 1993 onwards to 2003, 2004 and then upto 2007. While the appellants contend that the project was closed in so far as the respondents/writ petitioners in 2007. The fact remains that on 8.1.2008, the Director, Shri Uttam C. Laisram, Annexure-A/17 issued Office Memorandum in respect of the two respondents/writ petitioners which reads as follows:-
Government of Manipur
DIRECTORATE OF SCIENCE & TECH. AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
OLD LAMBULANE, IMPHAL-795001.
PHONE : (0385) 2451816, 2454929, 2454930: FAX : (0385) 2451816
EMAIL: dstmanipur@nic.in
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Imphal, January 8, 2008.
No. 2/28/96-DST (Pt-I):/504 The following Officers of IREP District Cell shall assist the Project Director, IREP/Scientific Officer (G) in all matters related to submission of proposals, correspondence related to service matter of IREP District Cell staff and implementation of IREP Programme.
Sl. No
Name and Disignation
Work assignment
1
Shri W. Sadananda Singh Project Officer, District-inCharge IREP Imphal East District
Submission of work correspondence follow-up of service matters of the IREP District Cell Staff in addition to his normal duties.
2
Shri Churamani Thangjam, Project Officer, District-inCharge IREP Senapati District.
Proposal, correspondence follow-up for implementation of the IREP Programme in addition to his normal duties
The abovementioned work assignment will be with immediate effect and until further orders.
Sd/-
( Uttam C. Laisram)
Director"
[5] Such order continues till the filing of the writ petition and the appellant state has not able to produce any material to show that the order dated 8.01.2008 was terminated by the authority. A specific question was posed by this Court to Shri Shyam Sharma to prove by documents whether the order dated 8.1.2008 has been rescinded by the Director and he fairly states that he has no proof of such letter being withdrawn, cancelled or rescinded. Therefore, the respondents/writ petitioners faced with the peculiar situation of not getting proper salary and not being absorbed were forced to file the writ petition for the following reliefs:-
"a) to issue a rule nisi to the Respondents in this behalf;
(b) to make the rule absolute if and when the Respondents failed to show cause or sufficient cause in this regard.
c) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice bearing No. 89/24/2006-(IREP)/DST(Pt) dated 29-06-2015 issued by the Director of Science & Technology , Government of Manipur informing the petitioners and others of their ilk to furnish an undertaking/certificate to the effect that they had work till 31-03-2007 and had stop thereafter for the purposes of proceeding for ex-post fact extension of their contract engagement for the release of their remuneration (at ANNEXURE A/21 hereof);
d) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus compelling the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue as Project Officers by transferring them from the Directorate of Science & Technology to the Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department and Autonomous District Council as per the decisions of the state cabinet taken on 02-09-2005 and 19-10-2010 for the implementation of the IREP Scheme;
e) to issue a further writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pay an allowances due payable to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.03.2004 till date and to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption/regularization of their service in view of their long continuous service of 22 years rendered on contact basis and as proposed by the Directorate of Science & Technology, Government of Manipur;
f) to pass an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 29-06-2015 during the pendency of the present of the writ petition;
g) to issue such other appropriate writs/ directions, interim as well as final, as to your Lordships any seem just and equitable, and
h) to award the costs of this Petition in case the Respondents contest the legitimate claim of the Petitioners without any justification."
[6] The two letters which was sought to be quashed are as follows:-
"Annexure-A/20
. No.4/24/2007-ST&IT(IREP/CSS)
Government of Manipur
Secretariat: Science & Technology Department
-------
Imphal, the 2nd December, 2014
To
The Director(S&T), Old Lambuland, Jail Road,
Manipur.
Subject:- Ex-post facto extension of contract engagement of 55 nos. contract staff of District Level/IREP staff of S&T Department for the period from 1-3-2004 to 31-3-2007.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to the above subject and request you kindly to furnish the undertaking from the 55 nos. of contract employee of District Level/IREP staff of Science & Technology Department certifying that they had worked till 31-3-2007 and had stopped working thereafter, at an early date.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Rachel N Guite)
Deputy Secretary(S&T)
Government of Manipur."
**************
"Annexure-A/21
GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR
DIRECTORATE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
..............................
NOTICE
Imphal, the 29th June, 2015
Subject: Undertaking / Certificate from staff of District level IREP Cell
No. 89/24/2006-(IREP)/DST(Pt.): In pursuance of Govt. letter No.4/24/2007-ST & IT (IREP/CSS) dtd. 2/12/2014, all the staff of District level IREP ( Integrated Rural energy programme) Cell of the different Districts of Manipur who were working from March 2004 to March2007, are hereby informed to furnish an Undertaking/Certificate in the prescribed format that they had worked till 31/03/2007 and had stopped thereafter. This is required for the purpose of processing for ex-post facto extension of their contract engagement and release of their remuneration.
The Undertaking / Certificate in the prescribed format (available on Manipur Government webside www.manipur.gov.in ) may be submitted to this Office within 20th July, 2015.
Sd/-
(Uttam Chand Laisram)
Director"
[7] On the plea for absorption, the respondents/writ petitioners relied upon the letters of the Director, Science & Technology, Govt. of Manipur and Information Technology, Govt. of Manipur dated 16.11.2010 (Colly), 11.7.2012 and 16.12.2013 which are extracted as below:-
"Annexure- A/18(Colly)
Government of Manipur
DIRECTORATE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
OLD LAMBULANE, IMPHAL-795001.
PHONE : (0385) 2451816, 2454929, 2454930; email: dstmanipur@nic.in
No. 2/7/08(IREP) DST & IT/597 Imphal, 16th November,2010.
To,
The Commissioner (S&T)
Government of Manipur.
Sub: Prayer for conversion of District Level IREP staff as District Unit staff of DST by creation of 30 posts and absorption of 29 nos. existing IREP staff thereof.
Ref: 1) Representation No. Nil dtd. 22/10/2010 addressed to Hon'ble Minister (S&T), Manipur
2) Our letter No. 2/7/08(IREP)/DST & IT/166 dated 29.5.2008.
3) Judgement and Order of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court WP(C) No. 719 of 2010 dtd. 11/11/2010.
Sir,
I am to refer to the above mentioned letter, regarding prayer for conversion of existing District Level IREP contract Staff as regular District Unit staff of Department S&T. The application has been examined and is being processed as desired by the Hon'ble Minister (S&T), Manipur vide the marginal note in the above mentioned letter (copy enclosed at Annexure-B).
The Ministry of Non-Conventional Sources of Energy, Govt. of India, had intimated that Integrated Rural Energy Programme (IREP) would be no longer implemented by GOI after 10th Plan i.e. 2006-07, and the State Government shall take up necessary action to continue IREP scheme as a State sector scheme and that all assets created and programmes built up are fully operated during implementation.
A proposal for post creation and absorption of the existing 47 nos. District level IREP staff had been submitted vide our abovementioned letter dtd. 29/5/2008. The same was agreed to by Planning Department, subject to clearance of the Committee of Officers and approval of State Cabinet. However, the Finance Department had deferred the proposal and the matter did not reach the Committee of Officers for consideration.
On further examination of the engagement of existing District level IREP staff, it is found that only 29 (twenty nine) nos. (i.e. 10(ten) Project Officers, 8(eight) nos. Junior Engineers and 11(Eleven) nos. LDCs had been appointed through DPC duly constituted by State, while balance 18 nos. did not go through Government constituted DPC. Accordingly, the proposal is now submitted for post creation and absorption of 29 nos. District Level IREP staff as District Unit staff of DST along with one additional post of Junior Engineer above the existing 8 Junior Engineers to cover all 9 Districts, as per break-up shown below:
Sl. No.
Designation with Prerevised payscale (ROP 1996
Breakup of 29 nos. existing IREP staff
No. of proposed posts for 9 Districts
For 9 Districts (1 post each at 4 ZPs and 5 ADCs)
Additional posts fo
1
Project Officer (Rs. 5500- 9000)
10
9
1
-
10
2
Junior Engineer (Rs. 5000- 8000)
8
9
-
-
9
3
LDC (Rs3050- 4590)
11
9
1
1
11
Total
29
30
The monthly salary requirement for the above 30 (thirty) posts based on Manipur Service (Revised Scale) 2010, pay-scales is Rs. 6.06 lakhs per months, with annual requirement or Rs. 72.74 lakhs. At present, Plan funds of Rs. 32.00 lakhs is available for IREP scheme under Grant No 46-Science & Technology, 2501(Plan)/04/105/08/00/50 in BE 2010-11. This amount is sufficient for 5 (five) months salary during 2010-11. Additional funds as required will be provided in RE 2010-11 and adequate funds will be provided in the next year budget of BE 2011-12 under IREP sector.
The detail Background note proposal, justification, fund availability, Recruitment Rules etc. are furnished in the enclosed Annexure-A.
Further, as per Judgement and Order of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court WP(C) No. 719 of 2010 dtd. 11/11/2010, the Government is to consider and dispose the representations dtd. 4/9/2010 which was submitted by some of the IREP staff, within 3(three) months to absorb/ regularise them in Department/Organisation as suitable to their posts in view of services rendered for 15-20 years.
It is, therefore, requested to kindly process the proposal for conversion by creation of 30 posts and absorbing/ regularization of the 29 nos. existing District level IREP staff who have been engaged by DPC duly constituted by State Government, as District unit staff of DST, for approval of the State Cabinet. Also approval for exemption from consultation with MPSC in respect of 10 posts of Project Officers in the scale equivalent to gazetted official is requested.
Yours faithfully,
Encl. A.A. Sd/-
(Uttam C. Laisharam)
Director."
(emphasis supplied)
********
"GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR
DIRECTORATE OF SCIENCE AND TECHONOLOGY
OLD LAMBULANCE, IMPHAL-795001
PHONE : (0385) 2451816, 2454929, 2454930; email: dstmanipur@nic.in
No. 3/19/2011(IREP) DST: Imphal, July 11,2012.
To,
The Principal Secretary (S&T)
Government of Manipur.
Sub: Prayer for conversion of existing District level IREP staff as District Unit staff of DST by creation of 30 posts and absorption of 29 Nos. existing staff thereof.
Ref:- This Office letter No.2/7/08 (IREP)DST&IT, dtd. 17.3.2011
Sir,
I am to refer to the abovementioned letter vide which the available fund position under relevant Head of Accounts (Plan) as desired by Finance Department, Government of Manipur had been submitted. As there was no outcome of the proposal during 2011-12, it is proposed that the same may kindly be processed during 2012-13.
The details of fund availability of Head of Account under Major Head 2501/04/105/08/00/50 (Plan) for IREP scheme during 2012-13 is furnished at Annexure-I. An amount of Rs. 50.00 lakhs is available in B.E 2012-13.
In view of the limited fund availability of Rs.50.00 lakhs for 2012-13, it is proposed that engagement of the District Level IREP staff for the 6(six) Autonomous District Councils (ADC) and 4 (Four) Zilla Parishads (ZP), may be done on contract engagement to release the fund requirement. The requirement of funds for contract remuneration for 7(seven) months from August 2012 to February 2013 is Rs.23.49 lakhs as per details at Annexure-II. This proposal is required for transfer of functionary to the ADC and ZPs as per Government Order No. 4/5/95-STE(Vol.II), dtd. 17/12/2010 and A.D,'s letter No.4/5/95-STE, dtd. 7/4/2006 (Copy enclosed at Annexure-III & IV).
In view of the priority given by the Government of Manipur for Devolution of Powers to Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Devolution of Powers to Autonomous District Councils (ADCs), the above proposal for providing functionary to the ZPs and ADCs may kindly be moved for Cabinet approval. The debatable Head of Account and Vetting Certificate is furnished at Annexure -V.
Encl: a.a.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Uttam C. Laisram)
Director"
******
"GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR
DIRECTORATE OF SCIENCE AND TECHONOLOGY
OLD LAMBULANCE, IMPHAL-795001
PHONE : (0385) 2451816, 2454929, 2454930; email: dstmanipur@nic.in
No. 89/24/2006(IREP) DST:/459 Imphal, the 16th December,2013.
To,
The Commissioner (S&T)
Government of Manipur.
Subject: Approval for conversion of District Level IREP staff as District Unit staff of DST by creation of necessary posts and absorption of existing District Level staff who have been appointed through DPC duly constituted by State Government.
Ref: a) Representation No. NIL, dtd. 20/11/2013 from IREP staff addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur and marked to Commissioner (S&T) on tour / Director (S&T) (copy at Annexure-C)
b) This Office letter No.2/7/08(IREP)DST &IT/597 dtd. 16/11/2010 for creation of 30 post and absorption of 29 nos. existing IREP staff (copy at Annexure-V).
Sir,
I am to refer to the abovementioned representation with marginal note of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur. Please examine and process and put up with detaile report for further necessary action either by order either by absorption or by regularisation as a Special Case without further delay. The list of documents in chronological order in connection with conversion of district level IREP staff as District Unit IREP staff under DST is enclosed at Annexure-B for kind reference.
In this regard, the following are placed for kind perusal and consideration.
1 Under the Devolution of Powers to PRIs and ADCs, the Devolution includes schemes related to Non-Conventional Sources of Energy under MANIREDA and IREP scheme component, along with providing the necessary functionaries/manpower. The Devolution of Powers to PRIs an ADCs have so far been limited to selection of beneficiaries, while the implementation is done through the DST as the functionaries have not been provided to the PRIs and ADCs till date due to limited fund for manpower.
As per advice by Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur, enquiry has been made regarding the status of IREP manpower absorption /regularization in neighbouring States and the details are as under for kind information of Hon'ble Chief Manister, Manipur:
a)
Nagaland
All the IREP staff were absorbed in the Department of New and Renewable Energy, Government of Nagaland
b)
Sikkim
The IREP staff were absorbed in the Sikkim Renewable Energy Development Agency.
c)
Mizoram
No IREP staff had been appointed. The IREP Scheme is presently being implemented by Mizoram Electronics Corporation Ltd., (DEONICS).
d)
Assam
The Assam, Energy Development Agency has informed that IREP is implemented under RD Department, but details are not available
e)
Tripura
The IREP Scheme is implemented by Tripura Energy Development Agency. All the IREP staff were appointed on regular basis.
f)
Meghalaya and A.P
No. details available.
The proposal for conversion of District Level IREP staff as district Unit staff of DST by creation of 31 posts and absorption of 26 nos. existing IREP staff, who had been appointed through DPC duly constituted by the State Government had been submitted earlier to AD vide this Office letter No.2/7/08(IREP)DST&IT/597 dtd. 16/11/2010 (copy enclosed at Annexure-V). The Planning Department and Finance Department had given clearance in principle but due to less fund availability during the 2011-12, the proposal could not be pursued. Funds are now available as given in the detailed at Annexure-A.
The monthly salary requirement under this proposal for 31 (thirty one) posts as per Manipur Services(Revised Pay Scale), 2010 is Rs. 7.00 lakhs per month approximately, with annual requirement of Rs.84.00 lakhs approximately. The Requirement of funds during 2013-14 for 2(two) months, January and February, 2014 will be Rs.14.00 Lakhs (approx.), for which funds is available as per details at para 5 of Annexure-A.
The detailed background note, proposal justification, fund availability, head of accounts, recruitment rules, etc. are furnished in the enclosed Annexure-A.
It is, therefore, requested to kindly consider the proposal for conversion of District Level IREP staff and absorption/regularization of 26 nos. existing District Level IREP staff who had been appointed through DPC duly constituted by State Government, as District Unit staff of DST by creation of 31st posts, and for placing the matter before State Cabinet for approval, so that functionaries can be provided to Zilla Parishad (ZPs) and Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) as per Cabinet decisions taken on 2/9/2005 and 19/10/2010 on Devolution of Powers to PRIs and ADCs at the earliest.
Encl: As above,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Uttam C. Laisram)
Director"
(emphasis supplied)
[8] A specific plea is raised in the reply affidavit filed before the writ Court to contend that these are contract employment and question of absorption to regular post does not arise. In the light of the objection filed by the State, the learned Single Judge went on to examine the nature of appointment, period of appointment, the nature of technical support given by the petitioners at the district level in respect of the I.R.E.P. scheme.
[9] In this case, two issues arose for consideration. One is the payment of salary for the period which the two respondents/writ petitioners have performed duties and the second component is of absorption on regular basis.
The first issue relates to payment of salary for the work done during the relevant period. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the plea of State that the services of the writ petitioners were not extended beyond March, 2004 or 2007 and if at all they have worked, it should be treated as voluntary work beyond the period of engagement, was found to be inherently defective and misplaced argument. The Court held that it is a mis-statement because Annexure-A/17, order dated 08.1.2008 specifically gives assignment to these two respondents/writ petitioners until further orders and therefore, the State plea of voluntary services have no legs to stand. It is a blatant false statement on the face of record. In the light of the above, the finding of the learned Single Judge at para No.20 setting aside the impugned communication dated 2.12.2014, Annexure-A/20 and 29.6.2015, Annexure-A/21 of the writ petition set out in para 6 above as justified and correct. This Court hastens to observe that the plea of the State that the respondents/writ petitioners worked voluntarily amounts to unfair labour practice, misusing the innocence of the respondents/writ petitioners, extracting work from them and refusing to pay them their lawful salary. The State is a model employer and not the one that breaches the law. We find no hesitation to uphold the finding of the learned Single Judge in para No.20 of the impugned order. The first issue is held against the State appellants and in favour of the petitioners.
[10] The second issue is on absorption of the two respondents/writ petitioners in regular establishment. While it is true that the people who have taken on contract employment cannot as a matter of right seek regularisation in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. vs. Uma Devi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. That requires to be considered in the light of para No.53 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court .
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (1967) 1 SCR 128, R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (1972) 1 SCC 409, and B.N. NAGARAJAN (1979) 4 SCC 507, and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
(Emphasis supplied)
[11] This plea of the appellants also is totally untenable in the light of the Annexure-A/18 dated 16.11.2010 and 16.12.2013 where the recommendation has been made for creation of posts because the respondents have served for more than 15 years as Project Officers. Earlier, the proposal was kept in abeyance for want of financial clearance. On the date of recommendation (i.e.) 16.11.2010, the details of financial liquidity to cover the projects for the district level has been amplified and clarified. It is obvious that a few have been chosen for special treatment taking cover under Para No.53 of the Uma Devi's case cited supra. The respondents/writ petitioners have been neglected even though the department continued their engagement beyond 8.1.2008, Para (4) above. These persons were not working on the basis of Court orders but in the district level, on the basis of order passed by the competent authority. The Central Government informed the State Government to continue the project with its funding. There is no illegality in the order of appointment and in the duties performed by the respondents. There was no reason for the appellants to show hostile discrimination in so far as the two respondents/writ petitioners when admittedly, in the case of State level I.R.E.P. cell, one Project Officer, two Investigators, one Stenographer, one LDC and one driver have been regularised. We fail to understand as to how the State can say that at the grass root level i.e. district level I.R.E.P.Cell should be without Project Officers and staff. If there is no district level I.R.E.P.Cell, as to how the State level I.R.E.P. cell would function without the grass root level being operative is a moot question. It is evident from this plea of the appellants/ State that while on one hand, they are allowing the Project Officers to serve the district level as per Annexure-A/17 order dated 8.1.2008 and not paying them the salary, have appointed persons on regular basis for the same project in the State level. There is no explanation for this disparity or anomaly.
[12] The learned Single Judge has only pointed out this glaring anomaly on the part of the State Government in not regularising the project officers despite a full-fledged proper and detail recommendation dated 16.11.2010 and 16.12.2013 which have already been extracted above. The learned Single has directed the Government to consider in the light of the said proposal without discrimination. The State, which has been directed to keep project alive, needs to keep the district level officers in the post if it has to sustain the I.R.E.P. Scheme. This important aspect cannot be overlooked.
[13] The learned Single Judge had only directed the State Government to consider the proposal as per letter dated 16.11.2010 and 11.7.2012 and 16.12.2013 for conversion of the appointment of the respondents/writ petitioners to regular establishment considering the fact that they have worked from 1993 onwards.
[14] The decision was left to the Government. Without taking a decision on merits, the appeal has been filed on the plea that there is a bar in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case. It will be useful to remind the appellant State to consider the proposal dated 16.11.2010 and 16.12.2013 in the light of para No.53 of the Uma Devi's case and not contrary to the same. Hence, we find no error in the direction of the single judge to consider this proposal on its own merit.
[15] Lastly, it was pleaded by Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate that one document dated 11.7.2012 is a forged document. That document was filed in the writ petition and considered by the learned Single Judge. Reply affidavit was filed in the writ petition. The said document has not been denied as false or forged document by the State. No material was placed to disapprove it. Even before this Court, it is a plea made without proof.
[16] Be that as it may, Shri Uttam C.Singh, Director, who is the author of the proposal dated 16.11.2010 and 16.12.2013, has not chosen to file an affidavit stating that the document dated 11.7.2012 signed by him is a false document. No specific material is placed to prove before this Court that the document is a false document. Mere pleading without proof will be of no avail. Hence,we reject such statements which are not supported by material or proof.
[15] Finding no merit, the appeal stands dismissed.