Shri Konjengbam Arunkumar Singh v. The State of Manipur
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
(a) The writ petition is disposed of
Judgment
2. Shri Konjengbam Arunkumar Singh, aged about of 51 years, S/o Konjengbam Gourachand Singh, a resident of Khagempalli Panthak, Imphal, Imphal West, Manipur-795001, at present working as Executive Engineer National Highway Division No.II on in-charge basis. ….Petitioners - Versus –
The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary (Works), Government of Manipur having its office at Old Secretariat(South Block), PO & PS Imphal, Manipur-795001.
The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Manipur Khoyathong, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-795001. .... Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
07.07.2022 [1] Heard Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. [2] Mr. H. Samarjit, learned GA appeared and takes notice for the respondents. [3] Both the counsels agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. [4] Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sought for the prayer as follows: (i) issue rule and kindly call relevant records. (ii) Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of the like nature for giving promotion to the post of Executive Engineer against the 2(two) vacant posts now lying vacant like other similarly situated persons who are juniors to the present petitioners namely Md. Rahimuddin, Y. Munindro Mangang (now under seal Cover), Th. Ratan Metei & K. Norjit Sharma so as to avoid discrimination amongst equals. (iii) further direct not to disturbed the services of the petitioners as Executive Engineers, In-charge till final disposal of the instant case. (iv) in the interim, direct to keep 2(two) post of Executive Engineers unfilled pending final disposal of the instant writ petition; or direct the respondent to consider the cases of the present petitioners by disposing the representations dated 21/04/2022 pending disposal of the instant writ petition. (v) Pass any further order/orders, direction/directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice. [5] Though the petitioner sought for larger prayer, Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioner represented that he is restricting the prayer only in respect of that if this Court is inclined to issue direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation dated
21.04.2022 by passing speaking order within stipulated period time, the petitioners will be satisfied. [6] Mr. H. Samarjit, learned GA for the State respondents submitted that without going into the merit of the case, if this Court issue direction directing the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation dated
Operative part
21.04.2022, the respondents are ready to pass appropriate orders and 3(three) months time may be granted for passing appropriate orders. [7] Mr. N. Jotendro, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are holding the post of Executive Engineers( In-charge) and they prayed for giving promotion to the post of Executive Engineers in their representation. Therefore, he prayed this Court that direction may be issued to the respondents to consider their representation dated 21.04.2022 and to pass appropriate orders on the same. [8] Considering both sides argument and without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to pass the following orders:
(a) The writ petition is disposed of. (b) the respondents are directed to pass appropriate speaking orders on the petitioners’ representation dated 21.04.2022 by giving personal opportunity to the petitioners. (c) the said exercise shall be done within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(d) Till the disposal of the representation dated 21.04.2022, the respondents are directed not to disturb the petitioners’ service as Executive Engineer(In- Charge), if the petitioners are admittedly working as Executive Engineers on in-Charge basis. JUDGE John Kom
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.