Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 46 (MAN)

Thangjam Dhaneshwor Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-04-07

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 3.12.2021. 2. Heard Mr. Th. Khagemba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. Samarjit, learned government counsel for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioners is that his father, who was serving as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and posted at Traffic Control Police, Imphal West District expired while in service on 1.8.2007 and, accordingly, his services was terminated with effect from 1.8.2007. Due to the sudden demise of the petitioner's father, who was the sole bread winner of the family, the economic condition of the family was badly affected. In view of the same, the petitioner has submitted an application on 24.9.2007 seeking appointment under die-in-harness scheme along with relevant documents for consideration of the petitioner's appointment to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police/any suitable post under the die-in-harness scheme floated by the Government of Manipur. The petitioner was waiting for his turn of appointment. While so, he has not been given appointment under die-in-harness scheme. Hence, he has submitted a representation on 3.12.2021. In the representation, it has been stated that the application has not been considered by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though petitioner is waiting for his turn of appointment under die-in-harness scheme, he had received information from reliable source that his turn has been superseded by many junior incumbents who had claimed their appointment under die-in-harness scheme after the petitioner claimed appointment on 24.9.2007. He would submit that generally the seniority of the claimant is based on the date of death of a Government servant. 5. The learned counsel further urged that the petitioner has submitted a representation on 3.12.2021 to the respondents for consideration of appointment to the post of ASI or any suitable post commensurate with the educational qualifications under the relevant Scheme of die-in-harness in the Police Department. However, the said representation has not been considered till date. 6. The learned government counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondent authorities have not violated the turn of appointment under die-in-harness scheme as alleged by the petitioner and that they have not given appointment to any juniors. 7. However, the said representation has not been considered till date. 6. The learned government counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondent authorities have not violated the turn of appointment under die-in-harness scheme as alleged by the petitioner and that they have not given appointment to any juniors. 7. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted an application dated 24.09.2007 for appointing him to the suitable post in the Police Department under die-in-harness scheme against the death of his father. The receipt of the application has not been disputed by the respondents. It is also admitted that the office of the Superintendent of Police, Imphal West District has forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Inspector General of Police (Administration), Imphal alongwith proforma 'B' in duplicate for appointment to the post of ASI or any suitable post in Manipur Police Department under die-in-harness. Since the application of the petitioner for appointment under die-in-harness scheme was not considered and juniors to the petitioner have been given appointment under the said scheme, on 3.12.2021, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents herein to consider appointment to the post of ASI or any suitable post commensurate with the educational qualifications under the scheme of die-in-harness. The said representation of the petitioner has not even been considered by the respondents till date. 9. There is no dispute that the Government of Manipur issued Office Memoranda from time to time and also framed scheme for appointment under die-in-harness. Further, the petitioner has accrued his legal right and has also legitimate expectation of getting job under die-in-harness scheme as the case of the petitioner is also covered by the relevant scheme for appointment under die-in-harness framed by the Government of Manipur. As such, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is to be considered for appointment to the post of ASI or any suitable post commensurate with the educational qualifications of the petitioner under the relevant scheme of die-in-harness. Since the respondents have not considered the petitioner under the scheme of die-in-harness, he has submitted representation on 3.12.2021. As stated supra, the said representation of the petitioner has not been redressed by the respondent authorities. 10. Since the respondents have not considered the petitioner under the scheme of die-in-harness, he has submitted representation on 3.12.2021. As stated supra, the said representation of the petitioner has not been redressed by the respondent authorities. 10. It is apposite to mention that once a representation is submitted to the authority, it is the bounden duty of the said authority to consider and pass orders on it one way or the other. Keeping the representation pending will definitely cause prejudice to the petitioner concerned. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3.12.2021 and pass a reasoned order, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.