Manipur High Court
Shri Mongjam Birajit Singh Aged About 56 … vs The State Of Manipur Through The Chief … on 11 August, 2025
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
reportable
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021
1. Shri Mongjam Birajit Singh aged about 56 years, S/o (L) M. Ibobi Singh
resident of Laitonjam Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Nambol and District
Bishnupur, Manipur Pin-795134.
2. Shri Naorem Brajamani Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o (L) N. Bor
Singh resident of Sagoltongba Makha Leikai, P.O. Langjing & P.S.
Patsoi, District, Imphal West, Manipur.
......Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur through the Chief Secretary-cum-Secretary
(Home), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat South Block, P.O. & P.S. Imphal
and District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
2. The Deputy Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat South
Block, P.O. & P.S. Imphal and District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
3. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Manipur, Babupara, P.O. &
P.S. Imphal and District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom), Manipur Police
Telecommunication Organization, Govt. of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal
and District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
..... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Sr.Adv., Ms. K Mercy, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shyam Sharma, GA.
Date of reserved. : 23.05.2025
Date of Judgement & order : 11.08.2025
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 1
JUDGEMENT&ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel assisted by
Ms. K. Mercy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shyam
Sharma, learned GA for the State respondents.
[2] By the present writ petition, the petitioners are, inter-alia, praying
for quashing/setting aside the order dated 23.03.2021 issued by the Deputy
Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur and directing the respondents to
promote the petitioners to the post of Dy. SP(Telecom)/MPTS(Junior Grade)
w.e.f. 22.03.2016 & 31.11.2015 by counting their seniority from the said date
without monetary benefits.
The substantial issue involved in the present case is "Whether
the employee shall be made to suffer for the lapses of the employer?".
[3] The brief facts leading to the present case are that the Under
Secretary to the Government of Manipur issued a notification dated
12.04.1976 whereby the Recruitment Rules for the post of ATMO (Equivalent)
to Dy. S.P. of Police in the Department of Police Wireless and as per the said
RR, the said post is to be filled up 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by
promotion. In respect of the promotion, Inspector Radio Tech. 5 years regular
service in the grade are eligible for promotion to the post of ATMO (equivalent
to Dy. S.P. of Police).
[4] Vide order dated 12.04.2002 issued by the Joint Secretary
(Home), Govt. of Manipur, the petitioners and 22 other persons were
appointed to the post of Inspector (Radio) and the names of the petitioners
appeared at serial Nos. 1 & 6 respectively.
[5] On 06.02.2021, the Under Secretary (DP), Government of
Manipur issued a notification whereby it was notified that the State
Government has exempted the sub rule (e) of Rule 28 of the Manipur Police
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 2
Telecommunication Service Rules, 2015 relating to pre-promotional
Departmental Examination for promotion to the Deputy Superintendent of
Police (Telecom) as a one time relaxation and it was further notified that the
said one time relaxation/exemption shall be valid for three months from the
date of notification.
[6] Vide notification dated 04.02.2021 issued by the Director
General of Police, Manipur was published on 01.02.2021 for final seniority list
of Inspector (Radio) re-designated as Inspector (Telecom) in the Manipur
Police Department whereby the names of the petitioners appeared at Serial
Nos. 2 & 1. A self-contained note was prepared by the DGP, Manipur for DPC
for promotion from Inspector (Telecom) to Dy. S.P. (Telecom/Junior Grade)
and from the said note, five vacancies were available for the recruitment year
2015-2016. Out of five vacancies, three vacancies fall under the direct
recruitment quota and remaining two vacancies falls under the promotion
quota.
[7] The Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur issued a
notification dated 12.03.2021 and in pursuance to the notification, Class-I DPC
meeting was held on 19.03.2021 for consideration for appointment of Dy. S.P.
(Telecom)/MPTS (Junior Grade) by promotion from Inspector (Telecom) in the
Manipur Police Telecommunication Organization (MPTO), Police Department
Manipur. Vide order dated 23.03.2021 issued by the Deputy Secretary
(Home), Government of Manipur, the petitioners and three other persons were
appointed on promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. (Telecom)/ MPTS (Junior
Grade) with immediate effect and the petitioners' name appeared at serial
Nos. 2 & 1.
[8] Being aggrieved by the said promotion, the petitioner No. 1
submitted a representation dated 22.07.2021to the Director General of Police,
Manipur for promoting him with effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy
i.e. 22.03.2016 as he was eligible for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P.
(Telecom) long before the vacancy arose.
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 3
[9] Vide O.M. dated 15.05.2014 issued by the Deputy Secretary
(DP), Government of Manipur whereby it was notified for a consolidated
instructions and guidelines for hold DPC under different departments of the
Government of Manipur and in the said O.M. under Clause 3, it was mentioned
that the DPCs would be convened at regular annual intervals to draw panels
which could be utilized on making promotion against the vacancies during the
course of a year, DPCs may be convened every year if necessary on a fixed
date e.g. 25th January or April. Holding DPC meetings need not be delayed or
postponed on the ground that recruitment rules for a post are being
revised/amended.
[10] Though the petitioners have already completed five years of
regular service in the Grade of Inspector (Radio) which was later re-
designated as Inspector (Telecom) way back on 04.06.2007, no DPC was
held for promotion due to non-availability of the vacancies to the post of Dy.
S.P. (Telecom) which was earlier called ATMO equivalent to Dy. S.P. of
Police. After the publication of Manipur Police Telecommunication Service
Rules 2015, two vacancies were available for promotion quota in the
recruitment year 2015-2016. Against this vacancy, the petitioners' case were
considered and promoted to the post of Dy. S.P. (Telecom)/ MPTS (Junior
Grade) only on 23.03.2021 at a very belated stage thereby causing a lot of
disadvantage in their service career. Hence, the petitioners approached this
Court by way of the present writ petition.
[11] Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated
that the petitioners were promoted to the rank of Inspector (Radio) on
04.06.2002 and they were eligible for promotion to the post of ATMO in the
year 2008, not 2007 due to crucial date eligibility as per old R.R. dated
12.04.1976. However, no DPC was held for promotion from Inspector (Radio)
to ATMO due to non-availability of vacancy. The Manipur Police Tele-
Communication Service Rules, 2015 was notified on 10.02.2015 wherein it
was mentioned that the method of recruitment is clearly mentioned in part-III
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 4
at Rule 5 and Rule 5 (1)(b) relating to promotion to Junior Grade, 50% of the
substantive vacancies shall be filled by selection borne on the cadre of
Inspector (Telecom) of Police Telecom Organization with five years regular
service and passed prescribed departmental examination.
[12] However, both the petitioners have not passed the prescribed
departmental examination and as such they are not eligible for promotion to
the post of Dy. S.P. (Telecom)/MPTS (Junior Grade) against the available
vacancies for the year 2015-2016. Vide notification dated 06.02.2021 was
published on 08.02.2021 wherein provisions provided in Rule 5(1)(b), Rule 22
and sub rule (e) of Rule 28 of the Manipur Police Telecommunication Service
Rules, 2015 relating to pre-promotion Departmental Examination for
promotion to Dy. S.P. (Telecom) has been exempted as one time relaxation
and this one-time relaxation/exemption has validity for a period of three
months from the date of notification. On the recommendation of the DPC
meeting held on 19.03.2021, the petitioners and three other persons were
appointed as Dy. S.P. (Telecom)/MPTS (Junior Grade) on 23.03.2021. It is
stated that the claim of the petitioners being eligible without one time
relaxation is strongly denied as the Manipur Police Tele-Communication
Service Rule, 2015 does not specifically mention exemption of Inspector
(Telecom) from the prescribed Departmental Examination for promotion to Dy.
S.P. (Telecom)/MPTS (Junior Grade). Hence, the present writ petition be
rejected as being devoid of merit.
[13] The petitioners filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by
respondent Nos. 3 & 4 wherein it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 possessed
the qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA)
and as such he is eligible for promotion to the post of MPTS (Junior Grade)/Dy.
S.P. (Telecom) in view of the exemption clause under Rule 28 (e) of the
Manipur Police Telecommunication Service Rules, 2015. No departmental
examination has been conducted till date due to non-finalization of the
syllabus. In such situation, the promotion of the petitioners could not be
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 5
withheld on the ground of not passing the departmental examination. The
lapse is on the part of the department for not holding the examination.
[14] Learned senior counsel of the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Dy. SP.(Telcom) due to non-
holding of DPC in time on the day of arising of vacancy and they were
promoted to the post of Dy. SP (Telecom) only on 19.03.2021 against the
vacancies of the year 2015-16 and as such, they will not be eligible for
promotion to the next higher post of Addl. SP (Telecom) of the Manipur Police
Dept. and they are praying for notional promotion from the date of vacancy
without claiming any monetary benefits. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior
counsel for the petitioners cites the decision reported as (1999) 7 SCC 209.
[15] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA submits that the petitioners are not
entitled to notionally promotion wef 2015-2016 as they were not otherwise
eligible then due to non-clearing of the departmental examination. There is no
lapse on the part of the department in not holding DPC. It is a long process
through different channels and time-consuming process. It is also stated that
right to promotion is not a fundamental right and learned GA has relied on the
following judgment:
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam and Ors.
(08.03.2022 - SC) : MANU/SC/0280/2022
"14............There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an
employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises,
in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view
the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the
corporation is in violation of the right of Respondent/writ Petitioner to
equality enshrined Under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the
Constitution, and the Respondent/writ Petitioner was unjustly denied
of the same is obviously unjustified.
..........................................................................................
27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta
and followed in Jagdish Lal and other cases, if it is intended to lay
down that the right guarantee to employees for being “considered” for
promotion according to relevant Rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e.
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 6
whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and
not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have
already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter
of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is
indeed a fundamental right guaranteed Under Article 16(1) and this
has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta
right from 1950.”
[16] This Court considered the material on record, the submissions
made at bar and principles of law in this regard.
[17] It is an admitted fact that vide order dated 12.04.2002 issued by
the Joint Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur, the petitioner and 22 others
persons were appointed on promotion to the post of Inspector (Radio) and the
names of the petitioners appeared at Sl. No. 6 and 1 respectively. Vide
notification dated 04.02.2021 issued by the Director General of Police,
Manipur, the final seniority list of Inspector (Radio) [re-designated as Inspector
(Telecom)] in Manipur Police Department as on 01.02.2021 was published,
whereby the names of the petitioners appeared at Sl. No. 2 and 1. The Dy.
Secretary (Home), Govt. of Manipur issued a Notification dated 12.03.2021
and in pursuance to the Notification, Class-I DPC meeting was held on
19.03.2021 for consideration for appointment of Dy. S.P. (Telecom)/MPTS
(Junior Grade) by promotion from Inspector (Telecom) in the Manipur Police
Telecommunication Organization (MPTO), Police Department Manipur. Vide
order dated 23.03.2021 issued by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government
of Manipur, the petitioners and three other persons were appointed on
promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. (Telecom)/ MPTS (Junior Grade) and the
petitioners’ name appeared at serial Nos. 2 & 1. Though they become eligible
for the post of Dy.S.P (Telecom) way back in the year 2007 as per the old R.R
dated 12-04-1976 no DPC was held in time. The old R.R. was superseded by
the new R.R in the year 2015. Even after the publication of new R.R, no DPC
was held through 2 vacancy under the promotion quota was available in the
year 2015 and 2016. Only on 19.03.2021, a DPC was held and petitioners
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 7
were given promotion to the post of Dy. SP (Telecom) of the Manipur Police
Dept. with immediate effect.
[18] It is the settled proposition of law that employees should not be
penalized for the procedural or administrative lapses attributable to the
employer. Equitable relief is warranted when the employee has acted in good
faith and complied with applicable rules. The doctrine of fairness, under Article
14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, supports protection against
arbitrary or unjust treatment. This will be clear from the following decisions.
[19] In the case of Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC
209, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the right to be considered for
promotion is a facet of fundamental right within the meaning of Articles 14 and
16(1) of the Constitution and held as below:
“Articles 14 and 16(1): is right to be considered for promotion a
fundamental right
22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with
individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the “State shall
not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection
of the laws”. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that
“there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating
to employment or appointment to any office under the State”.
It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16
is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The
said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in
a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of
employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word
“employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its
fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level
of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise
eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration,
a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal
opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a
person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered
for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental
right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right.”
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 8
[20] In the case of A. Selvaraj v. C.B.M. College, (2022) 4 SCC 627,
Hon’ble Apex Court held that a retired employee should not be made to suffer
for no fault of his and for the delay of his employer.
“12. In that view of the matter, subject to the further final order that
may be passed by the Government, the College/Management is first
liable to pay the interest on the delayed payment of retirement dues
subject to the final decision, which may be taken by the Government,
after hearing the Management and the former Secretary. However,
because of the inter se dispute between the Management, Secretary
and the Government on who is responsible for the delay in making the
payment and/or settling the dues, the retired employee should not be
made to suffer for no fault of his.”
[21] In the case of State of U.P. v. Maqbool Ahmad: (2006) 7 SCC
521, it is held that an employee shall not suffer in relation to service benefit of
timely promotion for the inaction of the employer.
“8. The High Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and
considering the facts of the case, observed that common selection
was held by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission for
Assistant Engineers. After they were selected by PSC, options were
exercised by the employees either to go to the Irrigation Department
or to the Public Works Department and the persons junior to the
respondent herein (the petitioner before the High Court) opted for
PWD. They thereafter went to the Irrigation Department and yet were
held entitled to get selection grade or super timescale since there was
stagnation for 16 or 18 years and could not be promoted. There was,
therefore, no reason to deprive the respondent herein of similar benefit
to which others were held entitled and the benefit could not be denied
to a similarly situated employee. Accordingly, the petition was allowed
and the authorities were directed to grant benefit of selection grade to
the respondent herein. Hence, the present appeal.”
[22] In Calcutta State Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Ashit
Chakraborty and Ors. (08.05.2023 – SC) : MANU/SC/0545/2023, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the employees cannot be made to suffer for the fault
of the employer.
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 9
“11. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No. 1 had exercised his
right to receive pension under the 1990 Regulations in the year 1991.
Thereafter, it was the duty of the Corporation to have given effect to
the same. Merely because there were some wrong deductions from
his salary and he was treated as member of the CPF Scheme, cannot
be permitted to be raised as a ground to defeat his rightful claim. The
pension was to start after retirement of the Respondent. When the
same was not released to him, immediately representation was made
by him. As no response was received from the Appellant, the writ
petition was filed. The argument that there are number of similarly
situated employees who will also stake their claims, will not deter this
Court in granting the relief to the Respondent, which is legitimately due
to him. Rather this argument shows that the Corporation was at fault
in implementing the 1990 Regulations in the cases of number of
employees though these were notified on 4.1.1991 and were given
retrospective effect from 1.4.1984. Technical objections are sought to
be raised, which are not tenable. For any fault on the part of the
Corporation, the employees cannot be made to suffer.”
[23] In a recent judgment of The State of Manipur and another vs.
Shri Mayanglambam Chitaranjan Singh and 8 others, WA No. 92 of 2023
dated 28.07.2025, a Division Bench of this Court held that
“50. ………………..It is the settled principle of law that the employees
should not suffer for the lapses on the part of their employer, especially
when they are not at fault. Benefits given to similarly situated
employees cannot be denied to them.”
[24] Ahongshangbam Tomba Singh vs. The State of Manipur
and Others WP(C) No. 592 of 2021, a learned Single Judge of this Court
observed that
“31………………………………the inaction on the part of the
department is against the instructions/guidelines framed by the
department of Personnel regarding holding of DPC for promotion.
Therefore, in order to compensate the loss of time in affording
promotion, it will be just and proper to direct the respondent to afford
notional promotion to the petitioner with effect from 2014-2015 that is
the vacancy year against which the petitioner was recommended.
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 10 [25] In the case in hand the petitioners were eligible for promotion in
the year 2007/2008 on completion of 5 years of regular services. However,
due to non-availability of clear vacancies, their case could not be considered
for promotion. Subsequently, 2 (two) number of vacancies were available in
the year 2015-16. Office Memorandum dated 14.05.2014 has contemplated
holding of DPC for promotion to vacancies available in a year at regular
interval annually and need not be delayed. The respondents have not given
any cogent reason for not holding DPC in the year 2015-16 when vacancies
were available. In the counter affidavit, there is a complete silence on this
aspect. Any reason whatsoever like, stay by court, ban on recruitment by
government, etc. has not been stated. Finally, the petitioners were promoted
to the post of DySP(Telecom)/MPTS(Junior Grade) in the year 2021 wef
23.03.2021 against the 2 (two) vacancies of 2015-16, on the recommendation
of DPC held on 19.03.2021. Since the promotion was not made in the year
2015-16 when the vacancies were available in terms of the OM of 2014 and
the promotion being with retrospective effect from 23.03.2021, they lost
valuable five years of qualified service in DySP(Telecom)/MPTS(Junior
Grade) to be eligible for further promotion. The petitioners were to retire the
months of January and February of 2025 and hence, they did not get minimum
5 years’ service in the cadre of DySP(Telecom)/MPTS(Junior Grade) for
promotion to the next higher post of Senior Grade & JAG (equivalent to Addl
SP Telecom) as per RR. If the DPC was conducted in the year 2015-16, the
petitioners, being seniormost in the feeder cadre, could have been considered
and promoted then and they would have minimum 5 years’ service for
promotion to the next higher post. In the circumstances, the petitioner
requested for notional promotion from the year 2015-16 without monetary
benefit so that they could be considered for promotion to the next post of Addl
SP Telecom. The plea of non-passing of departmental examination by the
petitioners cannot be accepted as the authority has not notified the syllabus
for the departmental examination and no examination was held till the writ
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 11
petition was filed. In the counter affidavit, the details of the departmental
examinations conducted so far, if any, have not been disclosed.
[26] In the circumstances narrated above, it is clear that the two
vacancies were available in the year 2015-16. The petitioners are seniormost
in the feeder cadre of Inspector (Telecom) and they were considered and
promoted in the year 2021 for the two vacancies of 2015-16. No reason is
disclosed for failure to hold DPC in the year 2015-16 and the same is in
violation of the direction laid down in the OM of 2014 stipulating for conducting
DPC at regular interval annually. Due to the lapses of the authority, the
petitioners lost 6 (six) precious years, as they were promoted only in the year
2021 with retrospective effect from 23.03.2021 against the vacancies of 2015-
16. Since they are to retire in the early part of 2025, they are not eligible for
promotion to the next grade of Addl SP Telecom because of not having 5 (five)
years regular service in the cadre due to the fault and lapse of the authority.
Right to be considered for promotion is a facet of fundamental right enshrined
under Articles 14 & 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
[27] Considering the peculiar factual matrix of the case, this Court is
of the opinion that it will be just and equitable to make the promotion of the
petitioners notionally from the date of arising of vacancies. The writ petition is
allowed and disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The order dated 23.03.2021 is modified in case of the petitioners
herein, namely, Shri N. Brajamani Singh (petitioner No.2) is notionally
promoted wef 31.11.2015 and Shri Mongjam Birajit Singh (petitioner
No.1) wef 22.03.2016 to the post of DySP(Teleco)/MPTS(Junior
Grade) without any arrears and for the purpose of promotion to the
next grade.
(ii) If the petitioners are otherwise eligible for promotion to the next
grade equivalent to Addl SP (Telecom) in any available vacanciesWP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 12
prior to their retirement, they be considered for the same by
conducting a special DPC against such vacancies.
(iii) There will be no change in the order dated 23.03.2021 with
respect to the remaining three promotees.
(iv) The whole process as directed in para (i) & (ii) shall be completed
within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of this order.
[28] Send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police,
Manipur for information and necessary compliance.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. Digitally signed
by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2025.08.12
MARING 09:10:55 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 844 of 2021 Page 13