Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 21 (MAN)

Irom Pratap Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors.

2015-02-03

KH.NOBIN SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Th. Rommel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. L. Monomala, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for release of pay and allowances for the period from. November, 2003. The facts which are not in dispute are as under- 3. The Union of India through the Ministry of Human Resources Development launched a scheme of Community Polytechnic for which 61 (sixty one) new institutes including Government Polytechnic, Manipur were selected. On the recommendation of a DPC, the petitioner along with six persons was initially appointed as Field Assistant (non-technical) in the scale of pay of Rs. 640/- - 1410/- for a period of 1 (one) year vide order dated 22-12-1986 issued by the Member Secretary, Community Polytechnic Society, Takyelpat, Imphal and the service of the present petitioner came to be extended from time to time without any break. The Controller of Technical Education, Manipur addressed a letter dated 27-12-2002 to the Principal Secretary (Higher and Technical Education), Government of Manipur requesting him to take necessary action to absorb the employees of the Community Polytechnic Society, Takyelpat, Imphal including the petitioner. While anxiously waiting with the hope that he may be absorbed in the Government Polytechnic, the Member Secretary, Manipur College of Technology society issued an order dated 07-05-2004 absorbing 2 (two) persons as Administrative Officer and Stenographer who were initially appointed along with the petitioner, followed by another order dated 27-10-2004 by which Shri H. Gulapi Singh was appointed on deputation as UDC. 4. The Union of India proposed for transferring the said scheme of Community Polytechnic to the State of Manipur for better implementation and accordingly, sought for the views of the State Government vide its letter dated 04-08-2005 and receipt thereof, the Under Secretary (Hr. and Tech. Edn.) sought comment from the Deputy Director, Controller of Technical Education, Manipur who in turn requested the Commissioner (Hr. and Tech. Edn.) vide its letter dated 01-10-2005 to invite views of the said Society. The Community Polytechnic Society being a registered body communicated its views to the Commissioner (RD & PR), Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 12-10-2005 stating that transfer was a good idea. 5. and Tech. Edn.) vide its letter dated 01-10-2005 to invite views of the said Society. The Community Polytechnic Society being a registered body communicated its views to the Commissioner (RD & PR), Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 12-10-2005 stating that transfer was a good idea. 5. Being aggrieved by the non-payment of his salary and allowances for the period since November, 2003, the petitioner along with persons similarly situated approached the Manipur State Human Rights Commission by way of joint petition being MHRC Case No. 65 of 2005 which was subsequently withdrawn for the purpose of approaching the Hon'ble High Court. On 20-11-2005, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner (Higher & Technical Education) requesting him to absorb his service in the Manipur College of Technology and also to release his monthly pay and allowances. Since the respondents failed to consider his case and his legitimate expectation being denied, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 6. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the said 3 (three) persons have been absorbed as the vacancies were available for the said posts. So far as the petitioner is concerned, there was no suitable vacancy in Manipur Institute of Technology (MIT), Manipur for which the petitioner could be accommodated. It is further stated that the payment of salary in respect of service rendered by the petitioner shall be arranged after receiving the funds from the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of Manipur. It thus can be inferred from the averments made in the affidavit that the respondents have not seriously disputed the fact that the pay and allowances as claimed by the petitioner for the said period are yet to be paid by the respondents. 7. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case is covered by the decision rendered by this court in W.P. (C) No. 359 of 2006, Shri Letkhohao Sitlhou -vs- State of Manipur & ors. on 11-11-2014 and that a similar order be issued. On perusal of the said order dated 11-11-2014, it is found that the said writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 359 of 2006 was filed by a person who is similarly situated and was appointed along with the present petitioner by a common order. on 11-11-2014 and that a similar order be issued. On perusal of the said order dated 11-11-2014, it is found that the said writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 359 of 2006 was filed by a person who is similarly situated and was appointed along with the present petitioner by a common order. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and with the counsel for the petitioner confining his submission to the first prayer only, this court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of in the light of the order dated 11-11-2014 passed by this court in the said writ petition being W.P. (C) No.359 of 2006. Accordingly, I direct that the respondents shall examine the claim of the petitioner and if found to be true, the respondents shall release the pay and allowances of the petitioner for the service rendered by him. This exercise will be undertaken by the respondents within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.