Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 45 (MAN)

Mutum Thaimon Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors.

2015-03-24

LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ. 1. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed for modification of the order dated 17.9.2014 passed in the Review Petition No. 37 of 2014 and also seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay the scale of pay admissible to the post of Executive Engineer, i.e. Rs. 10,000-15200/- 2. The brief background of the case is that the petitioner had been initially appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) by order dated 15.8.1980. After working as Assistant Engineer for about 20 years, by order Dt. 7.1.2000, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis for a period of 6(six) months or until the post is filled up on regular basis whichever is earlier. Thereafter, he was promoted to remain in-charge of the post of Superintending Engineer due to exigency of work in addition to his normal duties without any extra remuneration by order dated 7.3.2003. Again, by order dated 2.3.2009 he was directed to remain in-charge of the post of Additional Chief Engineer, PWD Manipur in addition to his normal duties without any extra remuneration. By order Dt. 12.1.2011, he was again directed to remain in-charge of the post of Chief Engineer (Works), PWD Manipur in the existing grade pay without any extra remuneration until further orders. While working as such, he submitted a representation on 24.8.2012 claiming pay and allowances admissible to the post of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Additional Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer for the period he worked in those capacities as in-charge officer. Since the representation was not considered, he filed W.P.(C) No. 790/2012 before this Court and the writ application was disposed of on 22.10.2013 directing the respondents to consider the same within a specified time. In compliance of the order Dt. 22.10.2013 passed by this Court, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 24.1.2014. Challenging the said order Dt. 24.1.2014, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 96 of 2014 before this Court claiming the scale of pay admissible to the post of Superintending Engineer, Additional Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer for the period he remained in-charge of the said three posts. A similar writ application filed by another Officer was taken up for hearing along with the case of the petitioner. Both the writ petitions, by judgment and order Dt. 5.9.2014, were dismissed. A similar writ application filed by another Officer was taken up for hearing along with the case of the petitioner. Both the writ petitions, by judgment and order Dt. 5.9.2014, were dismissed. Petitioner, thereafter, filed Review Petition No. 37 of 2014 challenging the order passed in the writ petition practically on merit. 3. Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, by order dated 17.9.2014, dismissed the Review Petition. 4. After dismissal of the Review Petition, present Misc. Application has been filed to modify the order Dt. 17.9.2014 solely on the ground that the petitioner was initially promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 27.7.1995 without any condition and thereafter again another order of promotion was passed on 7.1.2000 with certain conditions. 5. Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after getting promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, the petitioner had been directed to remain in-charge of further promotional post such as Superintending Engineer, Addl. Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer without any extra remuneration and therefore the Court did not grand the benefit claimed by the petitioner in the writ application. However, the petitioner was entitled to scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- per month admissible to the post of Executive Engineer, he having been promoted to the post in 1995 without any condition. 6. Mr. A. Shyam Sharma, learned State counsel, questioned the maintainability of the Misc. Application on the ground that after dismissal of the Review, no such application could be filed for modification of the order passed in the Review Petition. It was also contended by the learned State counsel that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner retired on superannuation as Assistant Engineer and not as Executive Engineer. The said order of superannuation having been challenged by the petitioner, his claim for payment of salary admissible to the post of Executive Engineer from the date he was promoted to such post, cannot be allowed. 7. First question to be considered is as to whether this application for modification of the order passed in the Review Petition is maintainable or not. There is no doubt that an application for modification can be maintained even after dismissal of the Review Petition for limited purposes and not for reopening the claim. 7. First question to be considered is as to whether this application for modification of the order passed in the Review Petition is maintainable or not. There is no doubt that an application for modification can be maintained even after dismissal of the Review Petition for limited purposes and not for reopening the claim. In the present case, claim of the petitioner is that he was initially promoted to the post of Executive Engineer by order dated 27.7.1995. On reading of the said order, it appears that he had been kept in-charge of the post of S.W. to S.E. IV Circle in exigency of work and it was not a regular promotion. Again, by order dated 7.1.2000, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, PWD Manipur in the scale of Rs. 10000-15200/- on ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months or until the post is filled up on regular basis whichever is earlier. In view of such a condition, on expiry of 6(six) months, the post of Executive Engineer having not been filled up on regular basis, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been reverted to the post of Assistant Engineer. Moreover, during pendency of the writ petition, he was allowed to retire on superannuation as Assistant Engineer and not as Executive Engineer. The said order of superannuation on 6.1.2014 has also not been challenged. 8. While dismissing the writ application, the Court had referred to several decisions and it is not necessary to repeat same decision in this order. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner wants to re-open the issue by filing the present application for modification. I do not find any justification to allow the petitioner's claim which has also been considered and rejected by the court in the writ petition as well as in the Review Petition. However, before parting with the case, I must make an observation that the services of the petitioner has been utilised by the State Government not only in the post of Executive Engineer, but also in the post of Superintending Engineer, Addl. Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer. Ordinarily the court would have allowed prayer for salary admissible to those posts, the petitioner having worked against those posts, though as in-charge. But because of the conditions imposed in the promotional orders, writ petition was not allowed. Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer. Ordinarily the court would have allowed prayer for salary admissible to those posts, the petitioner having worked against those posts, though as in-charge. But because of the conditions imposed in the promotional orders, writ petition was not allowed. Court, therefore, feels that such type of promotion should not be effected depriving an officer from getting salary of the higher post even though he/she discharges the function of such higher post. 9. Misc. Application is dismissed.