Takhellambam Utor Singh v. The State of Manipur & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
the writ petition is allowed
Judgment
B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
O R D E R
22.07.2022 [1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2 [2] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement/enforce the order dated
21.1.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No.1137 of 2002 to count the substitute service period of the petitioner with effect from 17.10.1988 to 31.10.1992 for the limited purpose of pensionary benefits within a stipulated period as have been done in respect of other similarly situated person. [3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner and two other persons have jointly filed W.P.(C) No.1137 of 2002 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench praying to direct the respondent authorities to regularize their substitute service for the limited purpose of pensionary benefits. By the order dated 21.1.2004, the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to regularise the substitute service of the petitioners for the limited purpose of pensionary benefits within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. [4] The learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Joint Director of Training, Government of Manipur, vide order dated 2.4.2004 passed an order regularising the substitute service period of Chanambam Prakashchandra Singh for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
However, without any reason, the said benefit was not extended to the case of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, such an action of the respondents in not extending the benefit is clear case of hostile discrimination, which is not permissible in law. Thus, a prayer is made to 3 direct the respondents to implement/enforce the order dated 21.1.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No.1137 of 2002 to count the substitute service period of the petitioner with effect from 17.10.1988 to 31.10.1992 for the limited purpose of pensionary benefits. [5] On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner has been appointed on purely substitute basis and has been extended from time to time as per the Department’s requirement and that the service of the petitioner was not continuous and his service has been extended by giving four days gap by issuing various extension orders by the Department.
Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits as extended to the case of Chanambam Prakashchandra Singh. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss the writ petition. [6] This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. [7] There is no dispute and as could be seen from the records that the petitioner and two others were appointed on substitute basis as Instructors on the recommendation of the Selection Committee on
17.10.1988. Thereafter, by the order dated 18.11.1992 passed by the Joint Director of Training, Government of Manipur, the petitioner was appointed on regular basis to the post of Instructor Crafts (Engineering Drawing) on the recommendation of the DPC meeting held on 3.10.1992. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Principal. 4 [8] Earlier, the petitioner and two others, namely, Chanambam Prakashchandra Singh and Gurumayum Bedamani Devi have filed W.P.(C) No.1137 of 2002 before the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench seeking to regularise their services from 1987 to 1992. By the order dated 21.1.2004, the Gauhati High Court, passed the following order:
Heard the learned counsel on both sides. This is a case by 3 (three) petitioners claiming for regularisation. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners were appointed on different dated from the year 1987 onwards and regularised later on around the year 1992 onwards. But the past services from 1987 to 1992 is not being counted although they were in continuous service. For this limited purpose of regularisation those years of service, this petition has been filed. No counter from the Government has been filed and the learned Government Advocate submits that Court may pass appropriate order as per law. It is also talked at the bar that on earlier occasions this Court passed similar orders for regularising, to cite examples, Annexure-A/11 and order dated 9.6.2003 passed in W.P.(C) No.877/2002 respectively being the orders. 5 In view of the fact that there is hardly any other dispute, the writ petition is being disposed of with the following observations and directions. The services of the petitioners for the period from 1987 to 1992 may be counted for the limited purpose of pensionary benefits from the date of their initial appointments. The exercise is to be completed within six months from today. It is made clear that this order will not entitle to them to claim any other service benefits.
[9] It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondent authorities regularised the services of Chanambam Prakashchandra Singh by issuing an order dated 2.4.2004 and in respect of the petitioner, no order has been passed regularising the past service from
Operative part
17.8.1988 to 31.10.1992. The reason for refusing to regularise the past services of the petitioner has been stated by the third respondent in his affidavit-in-opposition in the following line:
5. …. It is humbly submitted that the present petitioner has been appointed on purely substitute basis and has been extended time as per the Department’s requirement. That, the service of the petitioner was not continuous and his service has been extended by giving 4 days gap by issuing various extension orders by the Department.
6 [10] The aforesaid reason given by the third respondent cannot be accepted for the reason that while passing the order dated 21.1.2004 in W.P.(C) No.1137 of 2002, the Gauhati High Court directed the respondent authorities to take into account the initial appointment of the petitioner from 1988 to 1992 for the limited purpose of pensionary benefits. Further, the direction of the Gauhati High Court is positive in nature. As against the said order, the respondent authorities have not preferred any appeal and the said order attained finality. [11] When the respondent authorities extended the benefit of the order passed in the earlier writ petition referred to above to one person, denying the said benefit to other similarly situated person is highly condemnable. As stated supra, since the direction of the Gauhati High Court is positive in nature, the respondent authorities are bound to obey and implement the order dated 21.1.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No.1137 of 2002 without any reservation. [12] The action of the respondent authorities refusing to regularize the past services of the petitioner for pensionary benefits is a clear case of discrimination. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to allowed. [13] In the result, (a) the writ petition is allowed. 7 (b) The respondent authorities directed implement/enforce the order dated 21.1.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No.1137 of 2002 and to the past services of the petitioner from 17.10.1988 to 31.10.1992 only for the limited purpose of pensionary benefits and pass appropriate order in that regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (c) No costs. John Kom JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the writ petition is allowed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Manipur High Court, on 22 Jul 2022. The bench was MURALIDARAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.