Manipur High Court
Kabrabam Sanjoy Singh Aged About ... vs State Of Manipur Represented By ... on 8 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P(C) No.1145 of 2018
1. Kabrabam Sanjoy Singh aged about 39 years, S/o (L)
K. Kameshor Singh who is Ex-Head Lineman in the
Electricity Department, Government of Manipur of Uripok
Sorbol Thingel Kabrabam Leikai, P.O & P.S Imphal West
District, Manipur
2. Lentinhao Kom aged about 33 years, S/o (L) Khomjir
Kom who is Ex-JCC in the Electricity Department,
Government of Manipur of Leimakhong Sadar Hills, P.O
Mantripukhri, P.S Gamnom Sapormeina, Kangpokpi
District (now Senapati District), Manipur.
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Manipur represented by the Secretary (Power), Secretariat,
Government of Manipur, P.O & P.S - Imphal, Pin No. 795001.
2. The Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity Department, Keishampat,
Government of Manipur, P.O &P.S - Imphal, Pin No. 795001.
3. The Administrative Officer (Power) Imphal, Keishampat, Government of
Manipur, P.O & P.S- Imphal Pin No. 795001.
4. The Manipur State Power Distribution Company Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Keishampat, Government of Manipur, P.O & P.S- Imphal Pin No.
795001.
5. The Manipur State Power Distribution Company Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Keishampat, Government of Manipur, P.O & P.S- Imphal Pin No.
795001.
6. The Chief Secretary (DP), Secretariat, Government of Manipur, P.O & P.S-
Imphal, Pin No. 795001.
WP(C) NO. 1145 OF 2018 1
2
....Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR
For the petitioners :: L. Sanjeeka, Advocate
For the respondents :: Debendra, GA
Dates of hearing :: 15-09-2021 & 23-09-2021
Date of Judgment :: 08.12.2021
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
CAV
Heard Ms. L. Sanjeeka, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Deben, learned GA
appearing for the State respondents.
[2] The petitioner No. 1 is Class-XII passed and the
petitioner No. 2 is Class-VIII passed. The father of the petitioner
No. 1 while working as Head Lineman in the Electricity
Department, Government of Manipur expired on 11-10-2002
and the father of the petitioner No. 2 while working as JCC in
the Electricity Department, Government of Manipur expired on
05-09-2003 while in service.
[3] Thereafter, by order dated 8th November, 2002
and order dated 17th October, 2003, the father of the petitioners
were terminated from their service.
[4] The Government of Manipur had formulated a
Revised Scheme of Die-in-harness by Office Memorandum
dated 4th October, 2001, issued by the Department of Personnel
Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) and the petitioner
No. 1 in terms of that scheme made a representation on 07-11-
2002 and the mother of the petitioner No. 2 also made an
application on 26-02-2008 for being appointed under the Die-in-
harness scheme. In the meantime, the revised scheme of Die-
in-harness formulated in the Office Memorandum dated 04-10-
2001 was abolished by order dated 15-06-2002. Thereafter, by
order dated 16-12-2006 the Die-in-harness Scheme was
restored.
[5] Consequent upon restoration of Die-in-harness
Scheme, the Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms (Personnel Division) issued an Office Memorandum
dated 6th June 2007 with regard to appointment under Die-in-
harness scheme. The operative portion of the O.M dated 6th
June, 2007 reads as under:
"(i) The Die-in-harness Scheme was abolished vide
orders dated 15.6.2002. The OM of even No.dated
20.10.2002 clearly states that no application for
appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme should
be received. Thereafter, all applications submitted in
between 15.6.2002 and 16.12.2006 shall be treated as
invalid applications.
(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 OM.
(iv) The Head of Department concerned after
considering the applications received should either
submit the completed proposal to the Government for
appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme or
reject the application within one year from the date of
receipt of the application."
[6] Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 re-applied on 24-
08-2007 and the petitioner No. 2 re-applied on 26-02-2008. As
no steps were taken by the respondents the petitioners
approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.
748 of 2018 which was disposed of on 16-08-2018 directing the
respondents to consider and dispose of their representations
dated 07-11-2002, 26-02-2008 and 09-03-2018 within a period
of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
[7] Thereafter, the Power Department issued an
order dated 5th October, 2018 whereby, the claims of the
petitioners were rejected as no fresh application under Para-II
of DP's OM dated 06-06-2007 were received from the petitioner.
Being aggrieved, the present writ petition.
[8] Ms. L. Sanjeeka, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the Office Memorandum dated 06-06-
2007 which provides for appointment under Die-in-harness
scheme issued by the Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) was not published
for information to the general public and therefore, it was
impossible for the petitioner as well as any other similarly
situated persons who are seeking appointment under Die-in-
harness scheme to know that they have to apply afresh within
a period of two months from the issuance of the OM dated 06-
06-2007. She submits that the impugned order dated 05-10-
2018 was passed in a mechanical manner by only citing that the
petitioners had made no fresh application beyond the period of
two months' time as prescribed under para-II of the OM dated
06-06-2007.
[9] Mr. Deben, learned GA submits that there is a
clear stipulation in the OM dated 06-06-2007 which provides
that the applicants who had applied for appointment under the
Die-in-harness scheme had to apply afresh within two months
from the date of issue of the OM dated 06-06-2007. Accordingly,
all applicants who are interested to be appointed under Die-in-
harness scheme have to make a fresh application within the
prescribed period. However, in respect of the petitioners they
have made the application only on 24-08-2007 and 26-02-2008
which was much later then the prescribed period stipulated in
the OM dated 06-06-2007. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 05-10-2018 was passed as the petitioners did not qualify
for consideration in terms of the criteria laid down in para (ii) of
the OM dated 06-06-2007.
[10] I have considered the submissions forwarded by
the learned counsel for the parties.
[11] Office Memorandum dated 06-06-2007 which
provides for appointment under Die-in-harness scheme issued
by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(Personnel Division) has been considered by this Court.
[12] A consideration of the OM dated 06-06-2007
would indicate that the the said OM was not published for
information of the general public and therefore, it is not
expected that the applicants who had applied earlier would have
the knowledge to make their fresh application within a period of
two months from the date of issuance of the Office
Memorandum dated 06-06-2007. In the absence of any
Notification for information to the general public, it is not
expected that the general public would have the knowledge that
the OM dated 06-06-2007 prescribed two months' time for re-
application for appointment under Die-in-harness scheme.
[13] In the considered opinion of this Court, the
argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has
force and therefore, the respondents cannot strictly adhere to
the conditions provided in the OM dated 06-06-2007 unless it is
notified for the knowledge of the public. Further, a perusal of the
consolidated seniority list of applicants pending for appointment
under Die-in-harness scheme in the Power Department would
indicate that petitioner No. 1 had made his second application
on 24-08-2007 which is just about 2(two) months later than the
prescribed period of two months. The petitioner No. 2 also made
his second application on 26-02-2008. Therefore, this Court is
of the opinion that the manner in which the case of the
petitioners were rejected purely on the ground that the
petitioners had made no fresh applications as prescribed in the
OM dated 06.06.2007 was done in a mechanical manner
without taking into consideration that the affected parties would
have no knowledge of the stipulation provided in the OM dated
6.6.2007 in the absence of any public notice.
[14] In that view of the matter and on consideration
of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order
dated 5th October, 2018 is set aside and quashed. The
respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the
petitioners under the Die-in-harness scheme for appointment to
any commensurate post in terms of their educational
qualification under the Die-in-harness scheme subject to
fulfilling any other criteria under the relevant rules. Let such
steps be taken and completed within a period of 4 (four) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Writ petition is accordingly allowed.
No cost.
JUDGE
CHONGNUNK
Digitally signed by CHONGNUNKIM GANGTE
DN: c=IN, o=High court of manipur, ou=HIGH COURT OF
KIM MANIPUR,
pseudonym=9e33b348bf6bf41a7b7d571fef645245e9c315df39f
IM GANGTE
93d9f997f6f6825f03026, postalCode=795002, st=MANIPUR,
serialNumber=3c25b417b8ab4f2e15488e6a09fe004b75d3e17e
e1aa64940e881eed05f8ce66, cn=CHONGNUNKIM GANGTE
Date: 2021.12.09 13:07:32 +05'30'
