W. Dutta Singh v. T. Ranjit Singh

Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur dated 20-11-2018 passed in WP(C) No. 24 of 2017 and in compliance of the 1 above mentioned Court’s order dated 20-11-2018, Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that, the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment under die-in- harness scheme the Department of Education (S), Government of Manipur shall be treated as valid and the claim of the present petitioner, Wairokpam Dutta Singh, for appointment under die-in-harness scheme in the Department of Education (S), Government of Manipur will be considered as per the Seniority List maintained by the Department for such Scheme. However, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the Review Petition No. 19 of 2019. This issues in supersession of this Government Order of even No. dated 20-01-2022 and in compliance of the judgment and Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Manipur dated 20-11-2018 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 24 of 2017.” After considering the order dated 30th March, 2022, this Court is of the considered opinion that substantial compliance has been made to the order dated 20-11-2018 passed in WP(C) No. 24 of 2017 and accordingly, this contempt petition is closed. JUDGE 2 Item No.2 MC (Review Pet) No.18 of 2019 State of Manipur & 2 Ors ....Applicants -Versus- Wairokpam Dutta Singh ....Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

27.04.2022 Heard Ms. Sundari, learned GA appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. H. S Paonam, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. By this application, the applicants are praying for condonation of 250 days delay in filing the connected review petition. The reasons for delay have been given in para No. 4 & 5 of the present application. Ms. Sundari, learned GA submits that the delay of 250 days is bonafide and there were deliberate laches on the part of the applicants in filing the connected review petition. She further submits that the reasons have been elaborated in para No. 4 of the present application and therefore, submits that 250 days delay may be condoned. Mr. H. S Paonam, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petition objecting to the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants submits that 3 the reasons given in the present application are just dates which indicates movement of files and no proper explanation has been given as to why the delay of 250 days had occurred and therefore, submits that the present application should be dismissed. After considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the explanation given in the present misc case particularly at para No. 4, this Court is of the considered opinion that sufficient reasons have been given for causing delay of 250 days in filing the connected review petition. In my considered view, the delay of 250 days in filing the connected review petition is bonafide and therefore, misc case is accordingly allowed by condoning the delay. JUDGE 4 Item No.3 Review Pet No.19 of 2019 State of Manipur & 2 Ors ....Petitioners -Versus- Wairokpam Dutta Singh ....Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

27.04.2022 Heard Ms. Sundari, learned GA appearing for the review petitioners as well as Mr. H. S Paonam, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 24 of 2017. As both the parties are desirable of disposal of the present review petition, notice is issued and made returnable forthwith. Ms. Sundari, learned GA submits respondent No. 1/writ petitioner had made his application on 31-01-2003 for appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. However, the Die-in-harness Scheme was abolished by Office Memorandum dated 29-10-2002 and revived only on 16-12-2006. Thereafter, the Government issued OM dated 06- 06-2007 clarifying that application submitted during the period 16-06-2002 to 16-12-2006 shall be treated as invalid and fresh application should be submitted within two months. As the petitioner had submitted his fresh application only on 28-11- 2007 i.e. beyond the prescribed period, the case of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner also failed to challenge the OM dated 06-06-2007 and therefore, as his application 5 was beyond the prescribed period as stipulated under the OM dated 06-06-2007, his application became invalid and was rejected. It is also submitted that as many as 1083 applications received by the Administrative Department appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme and after scrutiny, the respondents had issued Order dated 09-11-2016 rejecting 306 applications. Thereafter, some of the applicants including the petitioner had filed various writ petitions challenging the order dated 09-11-2016. While the case of the present respondent/writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 24 of 2017 was pending, some other case i.e., WP(C) No. 1034 of 2016 and other batch of writ petitions were disposed of by common Judgment and Order dated 05-12-2017 quashing impugned order dated 09-11-2016 in respect of the concerned petitioners. Thereafter, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reform (Personal Division), Government of Manipur had issued an Office Memorandum dated 20-02-2018 on the subject of Appointment under Die-in-harness Scheme clarifying that fresh applications which were submitted to the concerned department for appointment under die-in-harness scheme in between 16-12-2006 (i.e., date of restoration of die- in-harness scheme) and 06-08-2007 (i.e., last date of submission of fresh application as DPs OM dated 06-06-2007) shall be treated as valid application. She further submits that affidavit-in-opposition was filed as early as 2017 in WP(C) No. 24 of 2017. However, due to communication gap, the Office Memorandum dated 20-02-2018 could not be placed before this Court while passing the final order. She further submits that if the Office Memorandum dated 20-02-2018 was brought 6 to the notice of this Court, a different view may have been taken while disposing of WP(C) No. 24 of 2017. As the petitioner had made his application beyond the time prescribed under the OM dated 20-02-2018, the case of the petitioner was rejected. Mr. H. S Paonam, learned senior counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner on the other hand submits that the present review petition should be dismissed outright inasmuch as this Court had relied on the Judgment and Order dated 05- 12-2017 in its entirety and not only on the operative portion of the said judgment. He also submits that the OM dated 20-02- 2018 is contemptuous in nature inasmuch as the respondents are trying to dilute the Judgment and Order dated 05-12-2017 passed in WP(C) No. 1034 of 2016 and other batch of writ petitions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only point of consideration in the review petition is whether the OM dated 20-02-2018 would have a bearing on the Judgment and Order dated 20-11-2018 passed in WP(C) No. 24 of 2017. This Court after considering facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the Judgment and Order dated 05-12-2017 passed in WP(C) No. 1034 of 2016 and other connected matters had disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in line with the direction passed by this Court by order dated 05-12-2017. While disposing of WP(C) No. 24 of 2017, this Court had considered the Judgment and Order dated 05-12- 2017 in its entirety and not only on the operative portion of the 7 said judgment. It is pertinent to reproduce para No. 10 of the Judgment and Order dated 05-12-2017 which reads as under. ”[10] There is one aspect which has not been dealt with by the said OM dated 06-06-2007. It may be noted that after the Die-in-harness Scheme having been abolished on 15- 06-2002, an OM dated 29-10-2002 was issued with the direction that no application should be received meaning thereby that no application can be submitted by any person. But it appears that the applications were received by the concerned departments as is evident from the OM dated 06- 06-2007, as a result of which the persons who wish to apply for appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme, have been categorized into two – one those who have submitted applications during the period of abolition of the scheme despite the OM dated 29-10-2002 being issued by the State Government and two, those who have not submitted applications thereby obeying the instructions contained in the OM dated 29-10-2002. The OM dated 06-06-2007 deals with the first category of persons only, being completely silent about the second category of persons, although the policy decision as contained in the order dated 16-12-2006 states that it would apply to the families of the Government servants who died in harness during the period of abolition of the scheme. In fact, the order dated 16-12-2006 does not make any difference between the said two categories of persons. The benefit intended to be granted under the order dated 16.12.2006, has been taken away by the OM dated 06.06.2007 in the form clarification in respect of the second category of persons and in other words, those who obeyed the instructions contained in the OM dated 29.10.2002, have been denied the opportunity of submitting their applications after the scheme being restored by the State Government. This distinction created by the OM dated 06.06.2007 is unfortunate and unreasonable for the reason that the State Government being an institution, 8 ought to act fairly and reasonably. It will not make any difference to the State Government whether a person or any other person is appointed under the scheme and the only thing to be ensured by the State Government, is that no one ineligible, shall be appointed and that equal opportunity as guaranteed under Article 16 of Constitution of India shall be given to all. Moreover, the Die- in-harness Scheme is a part of the welfare programme, in a democratic country, formulated in the interest of general public and therefore, the State Government shall not be too technical in its approach towards the procedure to be followed except on merit. It appears to be true that the validity and correctness of the OM dated 06.06.2007 has not been challenged by any of the petitioners and therefore, taking advantage of the OM dated 06.06.2007, the State Government has taken the stand that the applications submitted by the petitioners are received beyond the valid period. But the State Government has not given any reason as to how the applications of the petitioners can be said to have been received beyond the valid period, when no valid period is stipulated in the order dated 16.12.2006 for submitting application by a person whose father had died during abolition of the Scheme. It may further be noted that the order dated 16.12.2006 has not been superseded by the OM dated

06.06.2007 while only clarifies it and while doing that, the State Government has committed a mistake of discrimination. It is well settled principles of law that the State Government cannot take advantage of its own mistake. It is unfortunate that the petitioners were being penalized when the State Government was unable to implement its own OM dated

29.10.2002. Had the OM dated 29.10.2002 been implemented by the State Government, there would have been no such problem, as seen in the present case, which could have been avoided without creating any problem.” 9 The OM dated 20-02-2018 has also been considered by this Court. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the OM dated 20-02-2018 is not in consonance with the observation made by this Court in para No. 10 of the Judgment and order dated 15-12-2017 passed in WP(C) 1034 of 2016 and other batch of writ petitions. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the OM dated 20-02- 2018 cannot be taken into consideration by this Court. In that view of the matter, I see no merit in the present review petition and the same is dismissed. M No Cost. JUDGE CHONGNUN KIM GANGTE CHONGNUNKIM GANGTE +05'30' 10