Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur Represented By The … vs Mr. Khundrakpam Surjit Singh on 25 March, 2025
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.03.25 15:22:33 +05'30' Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WA No. 1 of 2024
Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner
(Higher & Technical Education), Government of
Manipur, New Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Principal Secretary/ Commissioner/ Secretary
(DP/Cabinet), Government of Manipur, Old Secretariat
Building, South Block, PO & PS Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Controller, Technical Education, Takyelpat, PO &
PS Lamphel, Imphal West District - 795004.
...Appellants
.....Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in Writ Petition
-Versus-
1. Mr. Khundrakpam Surjit Singh, aged about 45 years,
S/o Kh. Tomba Singh of Khangabok Mayai Leikai, Part-
II, Thoubal District, Manipur.
2. Mr. Nameirakpam Manichandra Singh, aged about 61
years, S/o Late N. Khomdon Singh of Kwakeithel
Mayaikoibi Mamang Leikai, Imphal West District,
Manipur.
.... Respondents
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
Page |2
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. D. KRISHNAKUMAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU KABUI
For the Appellants :: Mr. H. Debendra, Dy. AG
Mr. Dimal Kumar Haobam, Advocate
For the Respondents :: Mr. Ng. Jotindra, Advocate
Ms. W. Geetarani, Advocate
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 17.02.2025.
Date of Judgment & Order :: 25.03.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(D. Krishnakumar, C.J) :
Heard Mr. H. Debendra, learned Deputy Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Dimal Kumar Haobam, learned counsel,
appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ng. Jotindra, learned counsel
assisted by Ms. Geetarani Waikhom, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents.
2. The intra court appeal has been preferred by the State of
Manipur challenging the of the writ court thereby allowing the writ
petition.
3. The brief facts of the case is as follows.
4. According to the appellants, the respondents were
initially appointed as Workshop Attendants on ad-hoc basis in the
Government Polytechnic, Manipur under the Education Department
(Technical Section), Government of Manipur for a period of 3 (three)
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
Page |3
months w.e.f. 22.03.1999 and 07.05.1999 respectively. Their ad-hoc
services were extended from time to time by the Government, by
issuing various orders and the petitioners rendered the services as
Workshop Attendants on ad-hoc basis continuously, without any
break, till they were appointed as Workshop Attendants, on regular
basis on the recommendation of the DPC vide order dated 30.04.2018
issued by the Controller of Technical Education, Manipur and the
respondents herein were also entitled to all the annual normal
increments from the date of the initial appointment to the post of
Workshop Attendant on ad-hoc basis by issuing the two separate
orders dated 18.08.2007. Accordingly, the respondents herein/writ
petitioners were fully eligible for the appointment to the said posts.
5. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition to
consider for granting of regular services by counting the period of
services rendered by them prior to their regular appointment as
qualifying services for the purpose of pensionary and retirement
benefit. He made a representation to the Government on 08.08.2018
to consider the aforesaid request. The respondents herein/writ
petitioners also relied upon the various orders of the High Courts for
counting the period of ad hoc services rendered by the respondents
as qualifying services for the purpose of pensionary and other
retirement benefits. He also submitted that similarly placed persons
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
Page |4
also got the benefit under the orders passed by the State Government
in respect of the other department. The respondents also relied upon
the DP's Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2003 for counting as
qualifying services for pension wherein it is clearly provided, inter alia
at para 1 (ii) of the said DP's O.M. that in cases where the Hon'ble
Court directed the Government to regularize the services
retrospectively with effect from the dates they were appointed on ad-
hoc or officiating basis only for pensionary benefits, the court orders
may be complied with in cases of ad-hoc employees who became
regular appointee by way of direct recruitment duly recommended by
a competent DPC. By relying upon the aforesaid O.M. dated
05.07.2003, the petitioner sought for counting the past ad-hoc
services rendered by the ad-hoc employees prior to their regular
appointment as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary and
other retiral benefits only. By considering the aforesaid contention of
the petitioners, the writ court allowed the writ petition.
6. Challenging the order of the writ court, the
appellants/respondents in the writ petition have preferred a intra-court
writ appeal before this Court on the following grounds :-
That, the respondents herein are governed by the New
Pension Scheme which was adopted by the State Government w.e.f.
01.01.2005 and the respondents were regularized only on 30.04.2008.
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
Page |5
Therefore, the New Pension Scheme will not apply to the respondents
herein. The O.M. dated 05.7.2003 which is relied by the writ court in
directing to count the past ad-hoc service of the writ petitioner for the
purpose of pensionary and other retirement benefits is not applicable
to the case of the writ petitioners in view of the New Pension Scheme
has come into force and the writ petitioners are governed by the New
Pension Scheme.
Further, the ground raised is that the said new
Notification No. 9/44/2004-FD(PIC) dated 31.12.2004 issued by the
Department of Finance, Government of Manipur for adopting the new
restructured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme of the
Government of India. So, the new pension scheme will apply to the
new employees who entered into the service of the State Government
of Manipur with effect from 1st January, 2005. Therefore, the
contention of the appellants that though the O.M. dated 05.07.2003 as
relied upon by the respondent herein which is not applicable to the
facts of this case. Therefore, the petitioner is not governed by the old
pension scheme and hence, the said Memorandum will not apply to
the respondents' case. Without considering the said fact, the aforesaid
order has been passed in the writ court and therefore, filed the present
intra court appeal before this Court.
7. Heard the parties and perused the materials on record.
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
Page |6
8. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the
appellants would submit that the respondents herein who was initially
appointed as Workshop Attendants on ad-hoc basis in the
Government Polytechnic, Manipur under the Education Department
for a period of 3 (three) months w.e.f. 22.03.1999 and 07.05.1999
respectively. Their services have been regularized only from the year
of 2008 based on the recommendation of the DPC.
9. Relying upon the Memorandum dated 5th July, 2003
which is a document relied by the respondents herein for seeking the
similar relief. In the aforesaid Memorandum, the High Court passed
an order to regularize the service of the petitioners for the purpose of
pensionary and other retiral benefits by counting the ad-hoc services
rendered either ad-hoc or officiating basis as qualifying service.
10. Following the aforesaid order, the Memorandum has
been issued by Government. The aforesaid Memorandum was issued
on 5th July, 2003 which covers under the old pension schemes. Now,
the aforesaid documents have been relied by the respondents. The
said documents relied by the respondents will not apply to the
respondents. The respondents service was regularized from the year
2005. The petitioners also made the representation to the respondents
by order dated 30.03.2018 and order has been passed and considered
his representation.
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
Page |7
11. In the impugned order passed by the Appellants, the
claim of the respondent was considered by holding that the
respondent's initial appointment were not recommended by a
selection committee. Therefore, considering the aforesaid reasons
that the Appellants had rejected the case of the respondent.
Therefore, the order of the writ court is liable to be set aside.
12. The counsel appearing for the respondents states that
service of the similarly placed persons were regularized by the
Appellant. Therefore, the respondents herein, may also be granted the
same benefit and the respondents cannot be singled out by rejecting
the ad-hoc period as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary
benefit. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents relied the decisions rendered in 2019 (10) SCALE and
(2010) 4 SCC 317 the following judgments :-
2019 (10) SCALE
KUM C. YAMINI.... Appellant
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. ..... Respondent.
Appellant was appointed to a Fast Track Court as an ad
hoc District judge in the year 2003; High Court issued
notification inviting applications for regular appointments
to the posts of District and Sessions Judges in the A.P.
Higher Judicial Services; the appellant was selected and
appointed by the Government to the posts of regular
District Judges vide order dated 02.07.2013; the question
whether claim of seniority as filed by appellant was
maintainable; Held, No; whether the appellant can be given
benefit of counting the services rendered as Fast Track
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
Page |8
Judges, for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral
benefits; Held, Yes.
(2010) 4 SCC 317
Punjab State Electricity Board and Another .... Appellants
Vs.
Narata Singh and Another ..... Respondents.
Facts of the case
The claim made by the employee that previous service
rendered by him in work-charged capacity with the State
Government should be taken into consideration for the
purpose of determining qualifying service for grant of
pension. The arguments of the Board that the employee is
already given the benefit of his previous service rendered
as work-charged employee under the Board while counting
qualifying service for the purpose of pension and would not
be entitled to the benefit of Memo dated 25.11.1985
adopting policy decisions of the Government of Punjab
because the same was subsequently cancelled, has no force.
It is true that the policy decision mentioned in Memo dated
25.11.1985 was rescinded by the Board in the year 2004.
However, the Resolution of the year 2004, does not indicate
at all, that it is retrospective in nature nor is it the case of
the learned counsel for the appellants that the Resolution
of the year 2004 has retrospective effect. Therefore, on the
basis of the Resolution of the year 2004, the Respondent 1
cannot be denied the benefit of counting of previous service
rendered by him as work-charged employee under the
Government of Punjab for the purpose of determining
qualifying service under the Board for grant of pension.
Though the earlier round of litigation, the claim of
the employee was rejected. On filing the additional
documents, the Division Bench had directed the Board to
reconsider the claim of the respondent for pension by
inclusion of service rendered by him as work-charged
employee under the State Government.
13. The point for consideration in the writ appeal is as
follows:
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
Page |9
i) Whether the service of the respondents herein is to
be counted as a qualifying service for the period,
during which they were working as ad-hoc services ?
ii) Whether the initial appointment of the respondents
herein, is as per relevant rules?
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued
that the respondents herein was not entitled to counting the services
rendered from 22.03.1999 and 07.05.1999 till services been
regularized on 30.04.2008 for the purpose of pensionary benefit. The
primordial contention of the petitioner, that at the time of initial
appointment as Workshop Attendants on ad-hoc basis is not as per
the rules. According to the appellant, the initial appointment of the
respondent was not recommended by the selection committee, and
therefore, initial appointment of the respondent is illegal and
subsequent regularization of respondent is the concession granted by
the respondents herein.
15. Further, in the appeal, the Appellant raised the grounds
that the services of the respondents were regularized w.e.f. 30.4.2008
as Workshop Attendants in the Government Polytechnic Imphal, on
the recommendation made by the DPC. Therefore, the initial
appointment of the respondent is not in consensus with the Rules and
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
P a g e | 10
as such, the initial appointment is illegal. Therefore, the respondents
cannot have any legal right for claiming of regularization of service
from the date of their initial appointment.
16. According to the respondents that the New Pension
Scheme (New restructured Defined Contributory Pension Scheme of
the Government of India) came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and the
same was adopted by the State of Manipur w.e.f. 01.01.2005 vide
Notification No. 9/44-2004-FD(PIC) dated 31.12.2004 issued by the
Department of Finance, Government of Manipur. Since the
respondents herein is governed under the New Pension Scheme
which is a contributory pension scheme but, the same fact was not
placed before the writ court and there is no finding of the learned
Single Judge as seen in the aforesaid grounds raised in the appeal.
He also relied upon the order dated 10.01.2023 and granting the relief
to the respondents herein but later on, vide government order dated
05.09.2003, the aforesaid order was cancelled and therefore, the
respondents herein are not entitled for granting benefit or relief as
claimed in the writ petition unless his service been regularized from
the date of initial appointment. The learned counsel for the
respondents states that the respondents herein have been appointed
w.e.f. 22.03.1999 and 07.05.1999 as an ad-hoc appointee under the
department till regularization of services as Workshop Attendants on
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
P a g e | 11
29.04.2008 and also enjoying the due annual normal increment from
the date of their initial appointment to the post of Workshop Attendants
on ad-hoc basis. Therefore, they cannot deny the said benefit to the
respondents herein for counting the said period as qualifying service
for the purpose of pensionary benefit.
17. In support of his contention, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents herein relied upon the following
decisions :-
1) Kum C. Yamini -vs- The State of Andhra Pradesh & Another
reported in 2019 (10) SCALE SCC 834 – para 16 & 17;
2) Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. -vs- Narata Singh &
Anr. Reported in (2010) 4 SCC 317 – para 41 & 43;
3) Habib Khan -vs- State of Uttarkhand & Ors. Reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 542- para 7);
4) Indra Swahney & Ors. -vs- Union of India & Ors. Reported
in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 – para 260 & 261.
18. Heard the parties and perused the documents.
19. Based on the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC), the service of the
petitioners/respondents herein was considered for regularization of
service w.e.f. 29.04.2008 as Workshop Attendants. Therefore, the
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
P a g e | 12
petitioner is governed under the New Pension Scheme (New
restructured Defined Contributory Pension Scheme of the
Government of India) and not under the old pension scheme. When
the petitioners’ service itself is regularized w.e.f. 29.04.2008 and is
governed only by the New Pension Scheme (New restructured
Defined Contributory Pension Scheme of the Government of India) as
per Notification of the Government of Manipur vide its Notification
dated 31.12.2004, therefore, he is not entitled for granting the relief
as prayed by the respondents/writ petitioners for calculating the
service rendered during the adhoc period.
20. Therefore, the respondents/writ petitioners’ service been
regularized w.e.f. 29.04.2008 on regular basis though been served as
Workshop Attendants on adhoc basis, uninterruptedly without any
break in the service and the said period has not been regularized by
the department. So, therefore, the relief prayed in the writ petition
cannot be granted unless the service of the respondents is
regularized. Therefore, the contention of the respondents cannot be
accepted. In such circumstances, the said order of the writ court is
liable to be set aside.
21. The next contention of the appellant that the initial
appointment of the respondents herein is not on the basis of the
recommendation made by the DPC or the Selection Committee and
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
P a g e | 13
therefore, the appointment of the respondent herein is not on regular
appointment as per Rules nor in the sanctioned post, and no
document is placed is placed before this Court in support of the
contention of the respondents herein.
22. The respondents herein have relied upon the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kum C. Yamini -vs- The State of
Andhra Pradesh & Another reported in 2019 (10) SCALE SCC 834.
In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :
“16. In the civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C)
No.28302 of 2018, learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that the appellants be at least given the benefit
of counting the service rendered by them in Fast Track
Courts for pensionary and other benefits. In support of
his claim, learned counsel placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Mahesh Chandra Verma v.
State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2018(3) S.C.T. 92 : (2018) 7
SCC 270 wherein this Court has considered the very
same issue and held that the service rendered as Fast
Track Court Judges is to be counted for their length of
service, for the purpose of determining their pension and
other retiral benefits.
17. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we are
in agreement with the view taken by a two Judge Bench
of this Court. Resultantly, while rejecting their claim for
grant of seniority from the date of their initialWA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
P a g e | 14appointment as Fast Track Court District Judges and
other reliefs, we direct that the appellants and all others
who are similarly placed are to be given benefit of
counting their service rendered as Fast Track Judges, for
the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits.
With the above directions and observations the civil
appeals are disposed of with no order as to costs.”
23. In Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. -vs- Narata
Singh & Anr. reported in (2010) 4 SCC 317, para 41 & 43, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :
“41. All these directions indicate that the High Court
had come to the conclusion that the period of service
rendered by the respondent No. 1 in work charged
capacity under the State Government should be taken
into consideration for determining qualifying service for
the purpose of pension. Non-mention of such direction
in the impugned judgment is merely a slip and the
appellants cannot derive any advantage from this.
42. …………………………………………………….
43. The appellants are directed to implement the
directions given by the High Court in the impugned
judgment as early as possible and not later than three
months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.”
24. And following the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Habib Khan -vs- State of Uttarkhand & Ors.
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 542- para 7), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as follows :
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
P a g e | 15“7. As already observed, the provisions of Rule 370 of the
Civil Service Regulations applicable to the State of
Uttarakhand are pari materia with the provisions of Rule
3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, discussed
above. If that is so, we do not see as to why the period of
service rendered on work-charged basis by the appellants
should not be counted for purposes of computation of
‘qualifying service’ for grant of pension. The pari
materia provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil
Services Rules having been interpreted and understood
in the above manner by this Court in Narata Singh
(supra) we do not find any room for taking any other
view except to hold that the appellants are entitled to
reckon the period of work-charged service for purposes
of computation of ‘qualifying service’ for grant of
pension. We order accordingly; allow these appeals and
set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court.”
25. In Indra Swahney & Ors. -vs- Union of India & Ors.
reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
as follows :
“260. Equality is one of the magnificent cornerstones of
Indian democracy : Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj
Narain, (1976) 2 SCR 347, 659; Minerva Mills Ltd. v.
Union of India, (1981) 1 SCR 206, 241; Waman Rao v.
Union of India, (1981) 2 SCR 1. Articles 14, 15 and 16
embody facets of the many-sided grandeur of equality : The
General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari,
(1962) 2 SCR 586, 597 (AIR 1962 Supreme Court 36); State
of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas, (1976) 1 SCR 906, 956. Article
14 prohibits the State from denying to any person within the
territory of India equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws. All persons in like circumstances must
be treated equally. Equality is between equals. It is parity of
treatment under parity of conditions. The Constitution
permits valid classification founded on an intelligible
differentia distinguishing persons or things grouped together
from others left out of the group. And such differentia must
have a rational relation to the object sought to be achievedWA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
P a g e | 16by the law : State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976)1 SCR
906. See also Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.
R. Tendolkar, (1459) SCR 279.
261. Any State action distinguishing classes of persons is
liable to be condemned as invidious and unconstitutional
unless justified as a benign classification rationally
addressed to the legitimate aim of qualitative and relative
equality by means of affirmative action programmes of
protective measures with a view to uplifting identified
disadvantaged grounds. All such measures must bear a
reasonable proportion between their aim and the means
adopted and must terminate on accomplishment of their
object. Any legitimate affirmative action rationally and
reasonably administered is an aid to the attainment of
equality. In the words of Judge Tanaka of the International
Court of Justice :
“……The principle is that what is equal is to be
treated equally and what is different is to be treated
differently, namely proportionately to the factual
difference. This is what was indicated by Aristotle as
justice commutativa and justitia distrubutiva”.
“….the principle of equality before the law does not
mean the absolute equality, namely equal treatment of
men without regard to individual, concrete
circumstances, but it means the relative equality, namely
the principle to treat equally what are equal and
unequally what are unequal”.
“…..To treat unequal matters differently according
to their inequality is not only permitted but
required …..”
26. We have also anxiously considered the aforesaid
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
27. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has considered the relevant State Government rules as well as
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
P a g e | 17
regulation of the Board, based on the rules, services rendered by the
employees in the State Government had taken into consideration, as
qualifying services for the purpose of granting of pension. Therefore,
the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of case. The
decision rendered in Kum C. Yamini (supra) is different from the
present case. In this decision, appointments were made as ad hoc
District Judges by following the procedure which is similar to the
procedure for appointments to the sanctioned posts in regular cadre.
The Government also sanctioned the said ad hoc judges appointment
under the 11th Finance Commission and it was sincerely sanctioned
for 5 years under the Finance Commission. The relief is granted only
for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits. The other
request was negated by the Supreme Court. On the facts on hand is
considered, the respondents’ services has not been regularized, as
per Rules. Their services were regularized, after the Notification No.
9/44/2004-FD(PIC) dated 31.12.2004 which was adopted by the the
State Government w.e.f. 01.01.2005. Admittedly, the petitioners’
services were regularized subsequent to the said Notification i.e. on
29.04.2008. The respondents/writ petitioners has sought the prayer in
the writ petition is only seeking for linking up of the adhoc period of
service rendered by the petitioners as Workshop Attendants in the
Government Polytechnic, Manipur under the Education Department
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
P a g e | 18
(Technical Section), Government of Manipur with effect from date of
their respective initial appointments till prior date of regularization.
Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed in the writ
petition.
28. Therefore, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs the
said Respondents/writ petitioners are not entitled for the aforesaid
relief with effect from the date of their initial appointment. Hence, this
Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order.
29. On considering at any angle, the respondents herein is
not entitled for getting the relief as prayed in the writ petition and
therefore, there is force in the contention of the appellant, in the Writ
Appeal. Hence, the said order of the writ court is liable to be set aside
and consequently, the writ appeal is liable to be allowed.
27. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and
the decisions cited (supra), the order of the writ court is set aside and
consequently, the writ appeal stands allowed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Sushil
WA No. 1 of 2024 (Ref:- WP(C) No. 678 of 2021)
[ad_1]
Source link