Longjam Baleshwar Singh & 67 Ors vs State Of Manipur & 4 Ors on 28 April, 2025

0
3

Manipur High Court

Longjam Baleshwar Singh & 67 Ors vs State Of Manipur & 4 Ors on 28 April, 2025

                                                          1
LAIRENM Digitally
         by
                  signed

AYUM LAIRENMAYUM                                                                I tem Nos. 6 & 7
         INDRAJEET
INDRAJE SINGH                       I N THE HI GH COURT OF MANI PUR
         Date: 2025.04.28
ET SINGH 16:50:49 +05'30'                       AT I MPHAL
                                              WP( C) No. 344 of 2025
                                                       With
                                             MC(WP(C)) No. 318 of 2025

                             Longjam Baleshwar Singh & 67 ors.            Petitioners
                                                  Vs.
                             State of Manipur & 4 ors.                   Respondents

BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE AHANTHEM BI MOL SI NGH
28.04.2025
Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
Jyotsana Naorem, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners.

Mr. R.S. Wungathing learned counsel assisting Mr. M. Rarry, learned
senior counsel, entered appearance on behalf of all the respondents.
Hence, no formal notice is called for.

I t is the case of the petitioners that after taking over of the
Private/ Aided colleges wherein all the petitioners were serving and in
pursuance of the provision under Rule 7 of the Manipur Civil Service
(Appointment and other service conditions of employees of Government
Aided/ Private I nstitutions taken over by the Government) Rules, 1981, the
Government has issued an order dated 07.03.2019 absorbing the
petitioners and others into government service w.e.f. 22-01-2019 and also
ordering the protection of their past services and their pay protection with
notional effect including the pension and provisional gratuity in respect of
the employees of the erstwhile private/ aided colleges including the present
petitioners. Subsequently without giving any notice or without giving any
opportunity of hearing, the respondents unilaterally issued an Office
Memorandum dated 11-12-2023 thereby keeping in abeyance the order
2

issued in favour of the petitioners. I t is also the case of the petitioners
that in the minutes of the meeting of the committee for linking up of past
service for pensionary benefits held on 29-01-2025 by the officials of the
State Government, certain decisions about the applicability of the pension
rules in respect of the petitioners and other of their ilk were taken.
According to the petitioners, such action of the government is unwarranted
and illegal inasmuch as, the said Office Memorandum and the said decision
taken in the aforesaid proceeding adversely affect the accrued right of the
petitioners without following the principle of natural justice.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners press for
passing an interim order for protecting the right and interest of the present
petitioners.

Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents,
strenuously submitted that the decision taken by an executive officer of
the government cannot override the provisions of the statutory rule framed
under article 309 of the constitution and that he has also received
instructions to raise a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of
the present writ petition. The learned senior counsel also submitted that
he may be given a few weeks’ time to file a detailed affidavit and to
consider the prayer for passing interim order made by the petitioners in
the present writ petition. The learned senior counsel finally submitted that
there is no urgency for passing any interim order in the present writ
petition and that no interim order be passed in the present writ petition
before consideration of the prayer for passing interim order.

The learned senior counsel further submitted that out of the 68
petitioners only 14 has been finally absorbed by the government on the
basis of the recommendation made by the MPSC and if at all an interim
order is to be passed, it may be confined to this 14 petitioners only.

3

As prayed for by the learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents, list this case again on 07.05.2025 for consideration of the
prayer for passing interim order.

I n the meantime, it is hereby directed that the impugned Office
Memorandum dated 11-12-2023 and the decision taken in the aforesaid
committee meeting held on 29-01-2025 shall not be applicable to the
present petitioners till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE
I ndrajeet



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here