Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 30 (MAN)

Asem (O) Kamala Leima v. High Court of Manipur

2022-03-01

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. N. Surendrajit, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Kh.Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the second respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to a suitable post under the die-in-harness scheme as and when any vacancy arises in the post of Grade-III or IV as her junior had been given appointment. 3.The case of the petitioner is that her husband died in harness on 15.6.2011 while he was serving as Grade-IV in the then District & Sessions Court, Manipur East. The petitioner submitted an application on 11.8.2011 seeking appointment to a suitable post under the die-in-harness scheme. However, instead of considering the case of the petitioner, some other persons who are not in the list of applicants and who are down below the petitioner have been considered and given appointment. In this regard, the petitioner has also submitted a representation on 11.11.2019 to the Registrar General, High Court of Manipur for considering her case. Since no action was taken, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The first respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that though the petitioner claimed that she has submitted a representation on 11.8.2011 to the District and Sessions Judge, Manipur East, she failed to annex a copy of the said representation along with the writ petition. It is stated that the case of the petitioner is not similarly situated with the cases of the other three persons, as her late husband was appointed to the post of Peon under the die-in-harness scheme on 6.10.2003 and he expired while in service on 15.6.2011 after rendering only 7(seven) years 8(eight) months and 9(nine) days service, including one year probation period. 5. It is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for appointment in view of the revised die-in-harness scheme of the Government of Manipur dated 7.12.2017 and her case for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme has to be considered under the provisions of the Official Memorandum dated 4.10.2001 by confining only to Class-IV post. 6. It is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for appointment in view of the revised die-in-harness scheme of the Government of Manipur dated 7.12.2017 and her case for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme has to be considered under the provisions of the Official Memorandum dated 4.10.2001 by confining only to Class-IV post. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 15.6.2011 and during his life time he was serving as Grade-IV employee in the District and Sessions Court, Manipur East and after the demise of her husband, the petitioner submitted application on 11.8.2011 for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. He would submit that the husband of the petitioner survived by the petitioner and two minor school going children and they are dependents of the sole earning of the deceased employee. After the death of the deceased, the family of the petitioner has become indigent and living in a great financial need, as there is no other earning member in the family. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a graduate in Arts and she is eligible for appointment to any post of Grade- III and IV. Pursuant to the letter dated 27.3.2018 of the Registrar, High Court of Manipur, the District & Sessions Judge, Imphal East/Imphal West/Senapati have submitted list of applications for appointment under die-in-harness pending in the subordinate courts, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No.8 in the list. However, later on, the petitioner came across a letter dated 15.1.2019 issued by the Registrar (Judicial) by stating that the High Court of Manipur has recommended 3 persons for appointment to the post of LDA and requested the District and Sessions Judge, Imphal East and Senapati to issue appointment and posting orders and all the three persons have been given appointment. 8. The learned counsel then submitted that the persons at Serial Nos.1 and 2 are not included in the letter dated 27.3.2018 and 31.3.2018 and the person at Serial No.3 who is much down below the petitioner, inasmuch as his date of application is only on 29.4.2016 was considered for appointment under die-in-harness scheme. 8. The learned counsel then submitted that the persons at Serial Nos.1 and 2 are not included in the letter dated 27.3.2018 and 31.3.2018 and the person at Serial No.3 who is much down below the petitioner, inasmuch as his date of application is only on 29.4.2016 was considered for appointment under die-in-harness scheme. Therefore, on 11.11.2019, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Registrar General of the High Court of Manipur for considering her case for appointment under die-in-harness scheme at an early date, as persons whose seniority is down below has been given appointments. 9. By placing reliance upon the Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017 and 4.10.2001, the learned counsel submitted that the Registry of the High Court is misinterpreting the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017 and there is no ground for leaving aside the case of the petitioner for consideration, inasmuch as her case should be considered under the Office Memorandum dated 4.10.2001 as provided under Para No.21 of the Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017. 10. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that since the husband of the petitioner was appointed under die-in-harness scheme of the State Government, the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for appointment in view of the revised die-in-harness scheme of the Government of Manipur dated 7.12.2017. However, since the said Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017 was given with prospective effect i.e. with effect from the date of publication in the Gazette, the petitioner's case for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme has to be considered under the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 4.10.2001 and as per the said Office Memorandum dated 4.10.2001, her case is to be considered for appointment by confining only to Class-IV post. 11. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 12. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband died in-harness on 15.6.2011 and she had submitted application on 11.8.2011 for considering appointment to a suitable post under the die-in-harness scheme. However, persons much down below the petitioner were considered for appointment under did-in-harness scheme. Further, their applications are subsequent to the application of the petitioner. 13. The case of the petitioner is that her case has not been considered in view of paragraph 1 of the new Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017. However, persons much down below the petitioner were considered for appointment under did-in-harness scheme. Further, their applications are subsequent to the application of the petitioner. 13. The case of the petitioner is that her case has not been considered in view of paragraph 1 of the new Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017. Paragraphs 1 and 21 of the Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017 are relevant and the same are extracted hereunder: '1. Principle of Die-in-Harness Scheme: The objective of the scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to the next of kin (a dependent family member) of a Government servant who dies in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The Scheme is not extendable to generations and should not be considered as hereditary right. In other words, the scheme shall not be admissible/extendable to dependent family member of a Government servant if the Government Servant was appointed under Die-in-harness Scheme (DIH). ... 21. Effective Date of the Revised DIH Scheme: (a) The Revised DIH Scheme shall come into force with immediate effect from the date of notification in the Manipur Gazette. (b) All pending applications under the Die-in-Harness Scheme received before the effective date of the Revised DIH Scheme shall be governed by the earlier guidelines/Oms issued by the Department of Personnel from time to time subject to the following conditions: i. Seniority of all pending applications will be redrawn on the basis of date of actual death of the incumbent/government employee in regular service, as provided in the revised Scheme. ii. Consideration of pending DIH cases will be guided by the existing approved quota of 10% of available direct recruitment of vacancies.' 14. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Registry of the High Court is misinterpreting the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017 and there is no ground for omitting the petitioner for consideration since her case should be considered under the Office Memorandum dated 4.10.2001 as provided under Para 21 of the Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017. 15. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the High Court submitted that the case of the petitioner is to be considered for appointment under die-in-harness scheme of the Government of Manipur i.e. the provision of the Office Memorandum dated 4.10.2021 and paragraph 21(b)(ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017, subject to her seniority and the vacancy position. 15. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the High Court submitted that the case of the petitioner is to be considered for appointment under die-in-harness scheme of the Government of Manipur i.e. the provision of the Office Memorandum dated 4.10.2021 and paragraph 21(b)(ii) of the Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017, subject to her seniority and the vacancy position. Hence, there is no question of misinterpretation of the Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017. 16. Considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, more specifically the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the High Court that the first respondent is ready to consider the case of the petitioner under the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 4.10.2001 by confining only to Class-IV, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice it would suffice if the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the averments made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition. 17. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to a suitable post under the die-in-harness scheme in accordance with law and also in the light of the averments made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the first respondent. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.