Manipur High Court
Shri Thoudam Raghumani Singh vs The State Of Manipur Represented By … on 13 March, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
[1]
Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM SHOUGRAKPAM DEVANANDA
DEVANANDA SINGH
Date: 2025.03.13 12:05:06
SINGH +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 478 of 2019
Shri Thoudam Raghumani Singh, aged about 26 years, S/o
L. Th. Amutomba Singh of Khonghampat Awang Leikai, P.O.
Mantripukhri & P.S. Sekmai, Imphal East District, Manipur.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by Principal Secretary/
Commissioner/ Secretary, Horticulture & Soil Conservation
Department, Government of Manipur, Office at Secretariat
North Block, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Principal Secretary / Commissioner/ Secretary (DP),
Government of Manipur, Office at Chief Minister Bungalow,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Director of Horticulture & Soil Conservation Department,
Government of Manipur, Office at Sanjenthong, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.
... Official Respondents
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner :: Ms. Rinika Maibam, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mrs. L. Monomala, GA
Date of hearing :: 10-03-2025
Date of judgment & order :: 13-03-2025
WP(C) No. 478 of 2019 Contd…/-
[2]
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[1] Heard Ms. Rinika Maibam, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mrs. L. Monomala, learned GA appearing for the
respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 29-03-2019 issued by the Principal Secretary (H&SC), Government
of Manipur, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his appointment under
the Die-in-Harness Scheme and also with a prayer for directing the
respondents to re-consider his case for appointment to any Grade – III
or IV post commensurate with his educational qualification under the
Die-in-Harness Scheme in the Horticulture and Soil Conservation
Department, Government of Manipur.
[2] The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father, viz.,
Shri Late Th. Amutomba Singh expired on 21-05-2003 while serving as a
regular SCO in the Horticulture & Soil Conservation Department,
Government of Manipur. Upon such demise of the petitioner’s father, an
application dated 19-07-2023 was submitted by the petitioner’s mother,
who is the wife of the deceased Government employee, to the Director of
Horticulture and Soil Conservation, Manipur, requesting for appointment of
her daughter, Km. Th. Bidyarani Devi, who is the elder sister of the
petitioner.
During that particular time of submitting the said application, the
scheme for appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme was abolished
WP(C) No. 478 of 2019 Contd…/-
[3]
by the Government by an order dated 15-06-2002, however, the Die-in-
Harness Scheme was subsequently restored by the Government by issuing
an order dated 16-12-2006. Thereafter, under an Office Memorandum
dated 06-06-2007 issued by the Government, it is, inter alia, provided that
all applications submitted in between 15-06-2002 and 16-12-2006 shall be
treated as invalid applications and that applicants whose applications have
been treated invalid should submit fresh applications to the concerned
department within two months from the date of issue of the said Office
Memorandum.
[3] Subsequent to the issuance of the aforesaid Office Memorandum
dated 06-06-2007 and in compliance with the instructions contained in
the said Office Memorandum, the petitioner’s sister, who was the original
applicant, submitted a fresh application dated 20-06-2007 to the Director
of Horticulture & Soil Conservation, Manipur, requesting for her
appointment against any suitable post under the Die-in-Harness Scheme.
Later on, when the petitioner’s sister, who was the original applicant, got
married, the petitioner submitted an application dated 25-04-2011 along
with all relevant documents to the authorities with a request for his
appointment against any suitable post under the Die-in-Harness Scheme.
Upon receipt of such an application, the Director of Horticulture & Soil
Conservation, Manipur, forwarded the said application to the Government
under cover of a letter dated 24-06-2011 for change of nominee from the
petitioner’s sister in favour of the petitioner on the ground of the marriage
of the petitioner’s sister.
WP(C) No. 478 of 2019 Contd.../-
[4]
[4] Upon consideration of the petitioner's case for his appointment
under the Die-in-Harness Scheme, the authorities found him not eligible for
such appointment in terms of para (v) of the Office Memorandum dated
01-04-2011 as the petitioner was found to be only ten years, two months
and fourteen days old at the time of expiry of his father. Accordingly,
the claim made by the petitioner for his appointment under the Die-in-
Harness Scheme was rejected by the Government by issuing an order
dated 11-08-2015. For ready reference, para 1(v) of the aforesaid Office
Memorandum dated 01-04-2011 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“1(v) to consider cases in which the applicant was 15 years of
age when his/ her father/ mother and unmarried brother/
sister expired provided that the application is submitted
within 3(three) years from the date of expiry of the
Government servant.”
[5] Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the said order dated
11-08-2015 by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 710 of 2015 in this
court. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment and order dated
08-08-2017 thereby holding that the impugned Government order dated
11-08-2015 was not sustainable in law and consequently, issued a direction
to the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically
within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said
judgment and order and to issue a speaking order in respect thereof.
When the authorities of the State Government failed to
implement the direction given by this court in the aforesaid judgment and
order, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being Cont. Case (C) No. 176
of 2017 against the concerned authorities of the Government. The State
WP(C) No. 478 of 2019 Contd…/-
[5]
Government also preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08-08-2017
passed by this court in WP(C) No. 710 of 2015. However, the said SLP was
dismissed as being withdrawn with liberty to file a writ appeal before this
court but no appeal has been preferred by the Government against the
aforesaid judgment and order thereby rendering the said judgment and
order as final.
[6] Ultimately, the Principal Secretary (H&SC), Government of
Manipur, issued an order dated 29-03-2019 purportedly in compliance with
the direction given by this court in its judgment and order dated 08-08-2017
passed in WP(C) No. 710 of 2015 thereby rejecting the claim made by the
petitioner for his appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. The only
ground given by the authorities in the said order for rejecting the claim of
the petitioner is that the petitioner’s sister, who was the first nominee/
applicant did not submit fresh application within the prescribed two
months period as required under para 1(ii) of the Office Memorandum
dated 06-06-2007 issued in connection with appointments under the
Die-in-Harness Scheme. Para 1(ii) of the said Office Memorandum reads
as under:-
“1(ii) Applicants whose applications have been treated invalid
as above, should submit fresh applications to the
concerned Department within 2(two) months from the
date of issue of this O.M.”
Having been aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the said order
dated 29-03-2019 by filing the present writ petition.
WP(C) No. 478 of 2019 Contd.../-
[6]
[7] The respondents gave the following two grounds for rejecting the
claim made by the petitioner for his appointment under the Die-in-Harness
Scheme:-
(i) In para 1(v) of the Office Memorandum dated 01-04-2011 issued
by the Government, which has been quoted hereinabove, it is
provided that only the cases in which the applicant was 15 years
of age when his/ her father/ mother and unmarried brother/ sister
expired should be considered. As the petitioner was less than 15
years of age at the time of expiry of his father, the petitioner is
found not eligible for appointment under the Die-in-Harness
Scheme; and
(ii) As the petitioner’s sister, who was the first nominee, did not
submit fresh application to the authorities within two months from
the date of issue of the Office Memorandum dated 06-06-2007
as provided under para 1(ii) of the said Office Memorandum, the
claim of the petitioner had been rejected.
[8] In respect of the ground No. 1 raised by the respondents, it is to
be pointed out that on this ground, the authorities have already rejected
the claim of the petitioner for his appointment under the Die-in-Harness
Scheme by issuing an order dated 11-08-2015 (at Annexure – A/8). The
said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being
WP(C) No. 710 of 2015 in this court and the said writ petition was allowed
by a judgment and order dated 08-08-2017 passed in the said writ petition.
In the said judgment and order, this court has already held that the
WP(C) No. 478 of 2019 Contd…/-
[7]
impugned Government order dated 11-08-2015 was not sustainable in law
and directing the authorities to re-consider the case of the petitioner
sympathetically within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt
of a copy of the judgment and order and to issue a speaking order in respect
thereof.
Even though the said judgment and order was assailed by the
State Government by filing an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
same was also dismissed as being withdrawn with liberty to file a writ
appeal before this court, however, no writ appeal has been filed by the State
Government and as such, the said judgment and order passed in favour of
the petitioner has attained finality. Accordingly, this court is of the
considered view that the respondents cannot raise the first ground again as
the same is barred by the principle of res-judicata.
[9] So far as the second ground is concerned, the ground given by
the respondents for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is factually incorrect,
inasmuch as, it is on record that the petitioner’s sister, who was the first
nominee, submitted a fresh application dated 20-06-2017 to the Director of
Horticulture & Soil Conservation Department, Manipur, requesting for
appointing her to any suitable post on compassionate ground, as provided
at para 1(ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 06-06-2007. The existence of
the said application dated 20-06-2007 submitted by the petitioner’s sister
and the receipt thereof by the Office of the Director of Horticulture & Soil
Conservation Department, Manipur, is not controverted or denied by the
respondents. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the
WP(C) No. 478 of 2019 Contd…/-
[8]
rejection of the petitioner’s claim for his appointment under the Die-in-
Harness Scheme on this ground is unsustainable and the impugned order
dated 29-03-2019 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[10] In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and
the findings and reasons given hereinbelow, this court is of the considered
view that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the present
writ petition. In the result, the impugned order dated 29-03-2019 is hereby
quashed and set aside. The respondents are further directed to appoint
the petitioner to any suitable post commensurate with his educational
qualification in the Horticulture & Soil Conservation Department, Manipur,
under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. It is made clear that the whole process
of appointing the petitioner should be completed within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed
of. Parties are to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
WP(C) No. 478 of 2019 Contd.../-