Manipur High Court
Mv. Jalaluddin vs The State Of Manipur on 24 February, 2021
Digitally
MAYAN signed by
GLAMBA MAYANGLAM
BAM CHANU
Item No. 4
(Through Video Conferencing)
M NANDINI
Date:
CHANU 2021.02.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
NANDINI 15:38:52
+05'30'
REVIEW PET. No. 11 of 2018
Mv. Jalaluddin, aged about 66 years, S/o (L) Md. Alimuddin, resident of
Haoreibi Turel Ahanbi, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, District Thoubal, Manipur.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur, through the Commissioner, Education (S), Government
of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur-795001.
2. The Director, Education (S), Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur, Lamphel, P.O.
& P.S. Lamphel-795004.
... Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
For the petitioner : Mr. Th. Khagemba, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. S. Nepolean, Government Advocate
Date of hearing & order : 24.02.2021
REVIEW PET. No. 11 of 2018 Page 1 of 5
ORDER
[Sanjay Kumar, CJ]
[1] Heard Mr. Th. Khagemba, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
[2] This review petition arises out of the judgment and order dated
24.07.2018 passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 10 of
2018. The said appeal, in turn, arose out of the order dated 10.08.2016
passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1036 of 2015. The
review petitioner was the petitioner in the said writ petition. His prayer therein
was to quash the order dated 05.04.2013 and extend to him the senior scale
of pay attached to the post of Head Master of a Primary School with effect
from 01.04.2003 till the date of his retirement and to calculate his pension on
the basis of such senior scale of pay. By the impugned order dated
05.04.2013, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, had
rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for the said senior scale of pay.
[3] The learned Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the
impugned order dated 05.04.2013 and directing the authorities to extend to
the writ petitioner the benefit of the said senior scale of pay with effect from
01.04.2003 till the date of his retirement. The authorities were directed to
calculate the petitioner's pension on the basis of the said senior scale of pay
and pay him arrears of his pension within a time frame, failing which the said
arrears were to carry interest @ 9% per annum.
Aggrieved by these directions, the State of Manipur and its
Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, filed the writ appeal, viz.,
W.A. No. 10 of 2018. By the judgment and order under review, the learned
Division Bench held that no error was committed by the learned Judge in
arriving at the finding that the writ petitioner was entitled to the senior scale
of pay attached to the post of Head Master of a Primary School.
[4] While so, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
appellants stated before the learned Division Bench that the writ petitioner,
while in service as an Under-Graduate Teacher, had drawn senior scale of pay
and that he would not be entitled to a double benefit. Accepting this
contention, the learned Division Bench observed that if the writ petitioner had
already drawn the senior scale of pay while serving as an Under-Graduate
Teacher during the same period, he could not claim such senior scale of pay in
the grade of Head Master.
[5] However, the learned Division Bench went on to state that this
aspect would be a matter of record and had to be verified by the competent
authority to determine as to whether the writ petitioner would be entitled to
the senior scale of pay for the period in question and that it would have to be
reconciled by the Finance Department. The learned Division Bench accordingly
left it to the authority concerned to decide the issue on its own merit.
[6] Aggrieved by this latter portion of the above judgment and
order, the writ petitioner seeks review, by way of the instant petition.The
review petition was admitted on 10.09.2019.
[7] The matter is taken up for rehearing today, in terms of Order 47
Rule 8 CPC.
[8] Mr. Th. Khagemba, learned counsel for the review petitioner,
would contend that as the posts of Under-Graduate Teacher and Head Master
are two separate and distinct posts, the observation made by the learned
Division Bench as to the lack of entitlement of his client to the senior scale of
pay attached to the higher post, due to the senior scale of pay drawn in the
lesser post, requires review.
[9] We find merit in this contention. It may be noted that the
learned Division Bench ultimately left this issue to be decided by the authority
concerned.That being so, the observations made with regard to the lack of
entitlement of the review petitioner were not warranted. It was for the
authority concerned to examine the issue in its entirety and take a decision in
the matter as per law.
[10] It would suffice at this stage if it is made clear that the
observations made in para 8 of the judgment and order dated 24.07.2018 in
W.A. No. 10 of 2018 shall not have any influence or binding effect upon the
authority concerned while examining the issue of entitlement of the review
petitioner to the senior scale of pay attached to the post of Head Master in a
Primary School, in the context of the payment of senior scale of pay in relation
to the post of Under-Graduate Teacher during that period, if any.
[11] The review petitioner shall make a detailed representation
setting out as to how he substantiates his claim in this regard and the
authority concerned shall thereupon take a decision in the matter in
accordance with law. Before doing so, the review petitioner shall also be
afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. The entire exercise shall be
completed expeditiously and, in any event, not later than 2 (two) months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the detailed representation of the review
petitioner.
The Review Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
bipin
