Manipur High Court
Shri Irom Iboyaima Singh vs Shri R.K. Dinesh Singh on 23 August, 2022
NINGOM Digitally signed
by NINGOMBAM
BAM VICTORIA Item No. 13
Date: 2022.08.24
VICTORIA 10:29:51 +05'30' IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CONT.CAS(C) No. 77 of 2021
Shri Irom Iboyaima Singh, aged about 59 years, s/o late I. Iboton
Singh, a resident of Ningthoukhong Ward No. 7,
P.O. & P.S. Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
1. Shri R.K. Dinesh Singh, IAS, the Principal Secretary/
Commissioner/Secretary (Co-operation), Government of
Manipur, Office at Old Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S.
Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
2. Smt. Valentina Arambam, IAS, the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Manipur, Office at Lamphelpat, P.O & P.S.
Lamphel, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795004.
...Respondents/Contemnors
B EF O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
For the petitioner : Mr. M. Hemchandra, Sr. Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. R.S. Reisang, Sr. Advocate
Date of order : 23.08.2022
ORDER
[1] This contempt case was instituted alleging willful disobedience to
the order dated 05-07-2021 passed in WP(C) No. 334 of 2021.
[2] Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel, appearing for
the petitioner; and Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned senior counsel, appearing for
the respondents.
[3] By the order dated 05-07-2021 in WP(C) No. 334 of 2021, a
learned Judge of this Court noted that the appointment of the petitioner as
the Chief Executive Officer of Manipur State Co-operative Union (MSCU),
Lamphelpat, by the Government of Manipur under order dated 22-09-2016
was not sustainable and that it was cancelled thereafter, vide order dated
18-02-2021 issued by the Government of Manipur, in purported compliance
with the direction of this Court in WP(C) No. 318 of 2019. The learned Judge
was however of the opinion that the petitioner would be entitled to his salary
for the services rendered by him, if the issuance of the alleged illegal or
improper order of his appointment could not be attributed to him. The
learned Judge accordingly directed the State Government to take into
account this aspect while considering the computation of his salary for the
services rendered by him either as the Principal or the Chief Executive
Officer as well as the fact that he was retiring in December, 2021.
[4] By letter dated 25-09-2021, the Under Secretary (Co-operation),
Government of Manipur, directed the Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Manipur, to comply with the aforestated order dated 05-07-2021 passed in
WP(C) No. 334 of 2021 and to release the salary of the petitioner in the scale
of ₹. 9300-34800 + GP ₹. 5400 in the post of CEO, MSCU, for the period
01-01-2019 to 18-02-2021.
[5] While so, Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel, would
contend that the fixation of the petitioner's salary in the pay scale mentioned
above is incorrect and that the direction of this Court has not been complied
with in true and proper spirit. Learned senior counsel would point out that
order dated 03-01-2018 had been issued by the Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Manipur, noting that the petitioner, being the Chief Executive
Officer, MSCU, was enjoying the scale of pay of ₹. 15600 - 39100 +
GP ₹. 6600 and assert that the said pay scale ought to have been adopted
for computing his salary for the period of service, as directed by this Court.
[6] On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned senior counsel,
would point out that the initial appointment order dated 22-09-2016, whereby
the petitioner was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer, MSCU, was
silent as to the pay scale applicable to him. He would state that, as per the
recruitment rules, the pay scale attached to the post of Chief Executive
Officer, MSCU, was ₹. 8000-13500 till the year 2010 and the same was
enhanced to ₹. 9300-34800 + GP ₹. 5400 in the ROP 2010. Learned senior
counsel would rely upon the judgment in J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar
and others [(1996) 6 SCC 291], wherein the Supreme Court held that once
an order is passed by the Government on the basis of the direction issued
by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an
appropriate forum. Learned senior counsel would therefore contend that if
the petitioner has any issue with regard to the pay scale that is to be applied
for computation of his salary arrears, he would need to seek adjudication of
that issue by way of separate proceedings.
[7] This Court finds merits in the submission of Mr. R.S. Reisang,
learned senior counsel. There was no positive mandate by this Court as to
the scale of pay to be applied to the petitioner while computing the salary
payable for the period of his service as the Chief Executive Officer, MSCU.
On the other hand, the direction of the learned Judge was that the
Government should take into account certain aspects while computing the
salary, clearly indicating that it was for the authorities to undertake this
exercise in accordance with rules.
[8] There is no explanation forthcoming as to how the pay scale of the
petitioner was shown as ₹.15600 - 39100 + GP ₹. 6600 in the year 2018.
That was not the pay scale attached to the post in question as per the rules.
In the absence of a legal and acceptable basis for the same, it is not open
to the petitioner to assert that his salary arrears should be calculated on the
strength of that pay scale.
[9] As the authorities quantified his salary arrears on the strength of
the pay scale attached to the post under the recruitment rules, this Court
finds no cause made out to exercise contempt jurisdiction at this stage. It is
for the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance, if any, as to the adoption
of the said pay scale while computing and fixing his salary arrears. Leaving
it open to him to do so before the appropriate forum in accordance with law,
if so advised, this contempt case is closed.
No order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Victoria
