Manipur High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Manipur on 7 February, 2022
Digitally
LHAINE signed by
LHAINEICHO
ICHON NG HAOKIP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
G Date:
2022.02.07
HAOKIP 13:52:14
+05'30'
AT IMPHAL
WP (C) No. 137 of 2018
1. Shri Oinam Manisana Singh, aged about 54 years, S/O (L) O.
Dukanjao Singh of Chingmei Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang,
Bishnupur District, Manipur.
2. Shri P.K. Mawi Guite, aged about 46 years, S/O Vumtuan Guite of
Zehang Lamka, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur
District, Manipur.
3. Shri N. Ibobi Singh, aged about 60 years, S/O (L) N. Angaton
Singh of Khuga Tampak, Zehang Lamka, P.O. & P.S.
Churachandpur, Churachandpur District, Manipur.
4. Shri Laishram Haridas Singh, aged about 58 years, S/O (L) L.
Bokuljao Singh of Ningthoukhong Ward No. 11, P.O. & P.S.
Ningthoukhong, Bishnupur District, Manipur.
5. Shri Thokchom Ingo Singh, aged about 59 years, S/O (L) Th. Ibobi
Singh of Ningthoukhong, P.O. & P.S. Ningthoukhong, Bishnupur
District, Manipur.
6. Khawllienkim, aged about 54 years, D/O J. Batlien of Khawmawi
Village, P.O. & P.S. Churachandpur, Churachandpur District,
Manipur.
7. Wungkathing Makang, aged about 53 years, S/O Okngai Makang
of Tongou Village, P.O. & P.S. Somdal, Ukhrul District, Manipur.
8. Mathotmi Z. Ngalung, aged about 54 years, S/O (L) Tungshon Z.
Ngalung of Tongou Village, P.O& P.S. Somdal, Ukhrul District,
Manipur.
9. S.R. Ningthar, aged about 58 years, S/O (L) S.R. Lungshim of
Nondam Tangkhul Village, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Litan, Ukhrul
District, Manipur.
10. Shri Ningombam Heramani Singh, aged about 59 years, S/O (L) N.
Ibobi Singh of Wangkhei Ayangpali, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal
East District, Manipur.
11. Nongmaithem Sucheta Devi, aged about 29 years, D/O (L) N.
Surendra Singh of Wangkhei Yonglan Leirak, P.O. & P.S.
Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur.
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 1
12. Shri Lourembam Rachandra Singh, aged about 56 years, S/O (L)
L. Rajamani Singh of Koirengei Bazar, P.O. Mantripukrhi, P.S.
Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur.
13. Shri Nirmal Dornal, aged about 41 years, S/O Dhanbir Dornal of
Kalapahar, P.O. Kalapahar, P.S. Kangpokpi, Kangpokpi District,
Manipur.
14. Shri Dev Kumar Katwal, aged about 43 years, S/O (L) Bal Bahadur
Katwal of Kalapahar, P.O. Kalapahar, P.S. Kangpokpi, Kangpokpi
District, Manipur.
15. Shri T.S. Raisong, aged about 57 years, S/O (L) Sangba of
Tumuyon Khullen, P.O. & P.S. Kangpokpi, Kangpokpi District,
Manipur.
16. Shri Phairenbam Ibungcha Singh, aged about 57 years, S/O (L)
Ph. Maipak Singh of Chingei, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, Bishnupur
District, Manipur.
17. Shri Shelley P.H., aged about 40 years, S/O Hrani P.H. of Tungjoy
Village, P.O. & P.S. Tadubi, Senapati District, Manipur.
18. Shri P.S. Hepuni, aged about 57 years, S/O (L) P. Shehrii of
Tungjoy Village, P.O. & P.S. Tadubi, Senapati District, Manipur.
19. Shri Kamo Joseph, aged about 41 years, S/O (L) Y. Kamo of Ngari
Lishang Village, P.O. Maram, P.S. Tadubi, Senapati District,
Manipur.
20. Shri S. Hruni, aged about 53 years, S/O (L) S. Shirang of Ngari
Lishang Village, P.O. Maram, P.S. Tadubi, Senapati District,
Manipur.
21. Shri Wangkheimayum Opendro Singh, aged about 56 years, S/O
(L) W. Tombi Singh of Wangkhei Khunou, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
22. Shri Yarnao Keinam, aged about 58 years, S/O (L) K. Ophai of
Thiwa Village, P.O. Maram, P.S. Tadubi, Senapati District,
Manipur.
23. Shri Ngangbam Manidhaja Singh, aged about 53 years, S/O Ng.
Chandramani Singh of Samaram, P.O. Wangjing, P.S. Khongjom,
Thoubal District, Manipur.
24. Shri K.T. Ngalangzar, aged about 60 years, S/O (L) K. Kapong of
Thiwa Village, P.O. Maram, P.S. Tadubi, Senapati District,
Manipur.
25. Shri Chiri Keinam, aged about 60 years, S/O (L) K. Tungtor of
Thiwa Village, P.O. Maram, P.S. Tadubi, Senapati District,
Manipur.
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 2
26. Shri S. Ngou, aged about 41 years, S/O (L) S. Sahrii of Laii Village,
P.O. & P.S. Tadubi, Senapati District, Manipur.
27. Shri A. Hillaryo, aged about 60 years, S/O Ahrai of Phaibung
Village, P.O. Maram, P.S. Tadubi, Senapati District, Manipur.
28. Shri Thokchom Bijendra Singh, aged about 52 years, S/O (L) Th.
Ingo Singh of Heirok Part-II, Mayai Leikai, P.O. Wangjing, P.S.
Heirok, Thoubal District, Manipur.
29. Ngangkham Gomati Devi, aged about 59 years, D/O (L) Ng.
Angouba Singh of Khurai Konsam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat,
Imphal East District, Manipur.
30. Shri Dennis T. Dongzahau, aged about 44 years, S/O T. Goukam
of Bethel Veng, P.O. & P.S. Singhat, Churachandpur District,
Manipur.
31. T. Paudam, aged about 41 years, S/O (L) T. Vungkhum of Bethel
Veng, P.O. & P.S. Singhat, Churachandpur District, Manipur.
32. L. Gouchinkhup, aged about 45 years, S/O (L) L. Nengkhogin of
Bethel Veng, P.O. & P.S. Singhat, Churachandpur District,
Manipur.
... PETITIONER/S
-Versus -
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Principal Secretary
(Education/S), Government of Manipur, Imphal.
2. The Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, Imphal.
........RESPONDENT/S
B E F O R E
HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioners : Mr.T. Rajendra, Adv.
For the respondents : Mr. K. Jagat, GA.
Date of Hearing : 23.12.2021
Date of Judgment & Order : 07.02.2022
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 3
Judgment & Order
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and Mr. K. Jagat, learned GA appearing for the respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed jointly by 32
petitioners with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the impugned order
dated 07.11.2017 rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioners
and also for directing the respondents to count/link up the uninterrupted
services rendered by the petitioners as approved Teachers/LDCs just
preceding the conversion of their aided schools to Government Schools
and their regular appointment in Government service as qualifying services
only for the purpose of availing pensionary benefits.
[2] During the pendency of the present writ petition, 15 (fifteen)
petitioners out of 32, i.e., petitioners no. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21,
22, 24, 25, 27 and 29 have already crossed the age of superannuation.
[3] The brief facts of the present case are that all the petitioners were
appointed as Graduate Teachers (Sciences & Arts) and LDCs in erstwhile
13 (thirteen) Government Aided High Schools in the Hill Districts of
Manipur by the respective School Managing Committees. Subsequently,
their appointments were approved by the competent authorities of the
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 4
department of Education (S), Government of Manipur, by issuing different
orders in this regard and the petitioners rendered their services as
approved Teachers/LDCs in their respective aided schools.
The name of the petitioners, the post held by them, the
Government approval orders number and date of giving approval are
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
Sl. NAME OF STAFF POST GOVT. APPROVALORDERS DATE OF
No. &DATE EFFECT
No.
1 O. Manisana Singh, SGT No. 3/2/2010-ED (CCP), 23/12/2011
Petitioner No. 1 Dt. 14.05.2012
2 P.K. Mawi Guite, LDC No. 4/4/86-DEO (CC), 01/06/1987
Petitioner No. 2 Dt. 10.08.1987
3 N. Ibobi Singh, SGT No. 4/4/86-DEO (CC), 01/12/1986
Petitioner No. 3 Dt. 19.01.1987
4 L. Haridas Singh, AGT No. 4/3/83-DEO (S), 01/10/1980
Petitioner No. 4 Dt. 27.09.1983
5 Th. Ingo Singh, AGT No. 4/3/83-DEO (S), 01/10/1980
Petitioner No. 5 Dt. 27.09.1983
6 Khawllienkim, AGT No. 4/4/87-DEO (CC), 16/04/1987
Petitioner No. 6 Dt. 07.11.1987
7 Wungkathing Makang, AGT No. 3/1/2012-ZEO/Appt/UKL, 23/12/2011
Petitioner No. 7 Dt. 25.4.2012
8 Mathotmi Z. Ngalung, AGT No. 3/1/2012-ZEO/Appt/UKL, 23/12/2011
Petitioner No. 8 Dt. 25.4.2012
9 S.R. Ningthar, LDC No. 12/10/74-DEO (UK), 01/10/1980
Petitioner No. 9 Dt. 28.11.1980
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 5
10 N. Hiramni Singh, AGT No. 2/16/69-ED (TML), 01/10/1980
Petitioner No. 10 Dt. 25.11.1980
11 N. Sucheta Devi, AGT No. 6/31/97-ED (TML), 01/01/2012
Petitioner No. 11 Dt. 26.07.2012
12 L. Rachandra Singh, SGT No. 2/16/69-ED (TML),Pt.II 01/12/1986
Petitioner No. 12 Dt. 01.09.1986
13 Nirmal Dornal, AGT No. 3/14/2005-ZEO (Kpi), 01/01/2012
Petitioner No. 13 Dt. 06.06.2012
14 Dev Kumar Katwal, LDC No. 3/4/91-DEO (K), 11/11/1992
Petitioner No. 14 Dt. 12.02.1993
15 T.S. Raisong, LDC No. 5/6/DEO-M/80, 01/10/1980
Petitioner No. 15 Dt. 15.11.1980
16 Ph. Ibungcha Singh, SGT No. 3/AAT/86-DEO (K), 11/02/1988
Petitioner No. 16 Dt. 27.02.1988
17 Shelley P.H., SGT No. 1/16/2005(ZEO-SPT), 23/12/2011
Petitioner No. 17 Dt. 09.05.2012
18 P.S. Hepuni, LDC No. 5/7/DEO-N-80, 01/10/1980
Petitioner No. 18 Dt. 06.01.1981
19 Kamo Joseph, AGT No. 1/16/2005(ZEO-SPT), 23/12/2011
Petitioner No. 19 Dt. 09.05.2012
20 S. Hruni, LDC No. 5/7/DEO-SPT/80, 01/11/1983
Petitioner No. 20 Dt. 21.12.1983
21 W. Opendro Singh, SGT No. 5/30/DEO-SPT/80, 20/04/1987
Petitioner No. 21 Dt. 24.06.1987
22 Yarnao Keinam, AGT No. 5/6/DEO-N/80, 01/10/1980
Petitioner No. 22 Dt. 25.11.1980
23 Ng. Manidhaja Singh, AGT No. 5/30/DEO-Spt/80, 01/06/1988
Petitioner No. 23 Dt. 21.06.1988
24 K.T. Ngalangzar, LDC No. 5/6/DEO-N/80, 01/10/1980
Petitioner No. 24 Dt. 25.11.1980
25 Chiri Keinam, AGT No. 5/30/DEO-SPT/80, 20/04/1987
Petitioner No. 25 Dt. 24.06.1987
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 6
26 S. Ngou, AGT No. 5/19/ZEO-SPT/81, 17/07/2003
Petitioner No. 26 Dt. 02.09.2003
27 A. Hillaryo, LDC No. 5/7/DEO-N/80, 01/09/1982
Petitioner No. 27 Dt. 01.09.1982
28 Th. Bijendra Singh, SGT No. 4/61/ZEO-SPT/80, 29/11/2001
Petitioner No. 28 Dt. 04.04.2003
29 Ng. Gomati Devi, AGT No. 3/1/2012-ZEO/Appt/UKL, 23/12/2011
Petitioner No. 29 Dt. 25.04.2012
30 Dennis T. Dongzahao, SGT No. 3/8/92-DEO(CC), 01/01/1994
Petitioner No. 30 Dt. 06.04.1993
31 T. Paudam, AGT No. 3/4/03-ED(CCP), 01/10/2006
Petitioner No. 31 Dt. 09.11.2006
32 L. Gouchingkhup, AGT No. 3/4/03-ED(CCP), 01/10/2006
Petitioner No. 32 Dt. 09.11.2006
[4] While the petitioners were serving as approved Teachers/LDCs in
their respective aided schools, the Secretary of the All Manipur Aided
Secondary Schools Employees Association (Hills) (AMASSEA) submitted a
representation dated 30.03.2014 to the Minister of Education (S), Manipur
requesting for converting 13 (thirteen) Government Aided High Schools of
the Hill Districts of Manipur having class IX and X into full-fledged
Government High Schools with absorption of the existing approved staffs
only. Acting on the said representation, a memorandum for Cabinet dated
27.11.2015 was prepared with the following proposals:-
"(I) the 13 (thirteen) Government Aided High Schools may be
converted to full-fledged Government High Schools and amalgamated to
the 13 (thirteen) Junior High Schools by way of absorbing the services of
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 7
the approved employees (3 Graduate Teachers and 1 LDC) for each
schools with the new nomenclature as detailed at Annexure-III.
"(II) the untrained Graduate Teachers shall undergo the B.Ed
course as per NCTE norms".
[5] The aforesaid memorandum for Cabinet containing the above quoted
proposals were placed before the State Cabinet in its meeting held on
27.11.2015 as Agenda No. 16 and the said proposals were approved by
the Cabinet.
After obtaining the approval of the Cabinet, the matter was
processed in the Finance Department and the Finance Department
conveyed its concurrence with a rider that the order for implementing the
Cabinet decision shall be with immediate effect, i.e., with effect from the
date of issue of order by the Administrative Department.
[6] After obtaining approval of the Finance Department, the
Commissioner (Education-S), Government of Manipur, issued an order
dated 22.02.2016 according the Government approval to the takeover of
the 13 (thirteen) Government Aided High Schools in the Hill District having
classes IX and X only as Government High Schools with immediate effect
under the terms and conditions as given in the said order.One of the
conditions as mentioned in the said order is that all the 52 (fifty two)
approved Staffs, i.e., 3 (three) Graduate Teachers and 1 (one) LDC for
each of the 13 (thirteen) schools who were approved by the Education (S)
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 8
Department will be retained after conversion as Government employees
and their services will commence from the date of conversion, but their pay
and next date of increment will be protected after the particular of their
services are duly verified by the Director of Education (S), Manipur.
[7] Subsequently, on the recommendation of the Class-III DPC held on
12.09.2016 and in pursuance of the approval of the Government, 51 (fifty
one) approved employees, including the present writ petitioners, of the
erstwhile (13) Government Aided High Schools which were converted as
full-fledged Government High Schools were appointed temporarily as
Graduate Teachers and LDCs with effect from 22.02.2016 by an order
dated 08.11.2016 read with the corrigendum dated 22.12.2016.
[8] Feeling aggrieved by the Government's act of not absorbing their
services with effect from the date of their appointment as approved
Teachers, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 07.03.2017 to
the respondents stating, inter alia, that many of the petitioners are on the
verge of their retirement and if their past services as approved
Teachers/LDCs are not absorbed or protected, the petitioners will be
deprived of their valuable rights for availing their pensionary benefits and
that they have been treated discriminatorily with other similarly situated
persons and the respondents were requested to protect the petitioners'
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 9
past services by giving their date of appointment in Government service
from the date of their appointment as approved Teachers.
[9] When the respondents failed to consider and dispose of the said
representation, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.
342 of 2017 for redressing their grievances. The said writ petition was
disposed of by this Court by an order dated 12.05.2017 by directing the
respondents to consider the said representation dated 07.03.2017
submitted by the petitioners preferably within a period of 2 (two) months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. In purported
compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court dated 12.05.2017 passed
in W.P.(C) No. 342 of 2017, the Principal Secretary, Education (S),
Government of Manipur, issued an order dated 07.11.2017 declining to
grant the claim of the petitioners and rejecting their representation. Having
been aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court again by filing the
present writ petition assailing the said rejection order dated 07.11.2017 with
a prayer for directing the respondents to link up or count the uninterrupted
services rendered by the petitioners as approved Teachers just preceding
their regular appointment in Government service as qualifying services only
for the purpose of availing pensionary benefits.
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 10
[10] Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that all the petitioners are approved Teachers/LDCs and some of
the petitioners have rendered about 36 years service as approved
employees in the erstwhile 13 (thirteen) aided schools before their
absorption in Government service on 08.11.2016. During the pendency of
the present writ petition, as many as 15 petitioners out of 32 have already
retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation without availing
any pensionary benefits. It has also been submitted that in connection with
the demand made by the petitioners for absorbing their services with effect
from the date of their appointment as approved Teachers/LDCs, the
Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, made a
recommendation to the Government under a letter dated 25.04.2016 to the
effect that commencement of the services of the approved employees of
the erstwhile 13 (thirteen) aided high schools effective from the date of
entering services as approved employees may be considered as the
approved employees have been enjoying the scale of pay like regular
Government employees since the date of appointment as approved
employees. The learned counsel further submitted that in the aforesaid
memorandum for Cabinet, the financial liabilities in absorbing and payment
of salary of the petitioners on their absorption in Government services were
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 11
clearly reflected and that in the proposal made in the said memorandum for
Cabinet as well as in the Cabinet decision approving the proposals for
conversion of the aided schools and absorption of the approved
employees, there was not even a single whisper that the absorption of the
approved employees will be with effect from the date of the issue of the
order by the Administrative Departments. However, the Finance
Department, while conveying their concurrence to the Cabinet decision,
aided a rider that the conversion of the schools and the absorption of the
approved employees will be with effect from the date of issue of the order
by the Administrative Department, without assigning any reason
whatsoever. The learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that such
condition imposed by the Finance Department for absorption of the
petitioners in Government services is extraneous and arbitrary and legally
unsustainable as the same has been done without assigning any reason
and such arbitrary action of the Finance Department as well as the
Administrative Department has deprived the petitioners of their valuable
right to enjoy the long and valuable services rendered by them as approved
Teachers for the purpose of availing pensionary benefits. The learned
counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be
quashed and set aside and the respondents should be directed to protect
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 12
the services rendered by the petitioners as approved Teachers so that the
petitioners can enjoy their entitled pensionary benefits.
[11] In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the
following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
(i) In the case of "East Coast Railway Vs. Mahadev Appa
Rao" reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in
Para 23 that:
"23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can
manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the
authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed
by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of
mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the
order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Application
of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority
making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the
reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence
of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the
record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the
order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable."
(ii) In the case of "S.G. Jaisinghani Vs. Union of India"
reported in AIR 1967 SC 1427, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Para
14 that:-
"14. In this context it is important to emphasize that the
absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law
upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system
governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive
authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of
law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by
the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such
decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where
he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule
it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 13
taken in accordance with the rule of law. (See Dicey - "Law of the
Constitution" - Tenth Edn., Introduction ex). "Law has reached its
finest moments," stated Douglas, J. in United States V. Wunderlich,
(1951) 342 US 98, "when it has freed man from the unlimited
discretion of some ruler. Where discretion is absolute, man has
always suffered". It is in this sense that the rule of law may be said
to be the sworn enemy of caprice. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield
stated it in classic terms in the case of John Wilkes, (1770) 4 Burr
2528 at p. 2539 means sound discretion guided by law. It must be
governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague,
and fanciful."
[12] It has also been submitted by Mr. T. Rajendra that at the time of
conversion of the Heirok Part-I aided high school into a Government
School, the Government issued an order dated 15.12.1995, wherein one of
the conditions for the said conversion was that the services of the staff as
Government employee will commence from the date of entering their
service as approved employees in the erstwhile aided school. Another such
instance pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners is the order dated
29.02.2004, issued by the Government according approval to the linking up
of services rendered by 18 Teachers of the erstwhile aided Sagang High
School as approved Teachers for the purpose of their pensionary benefits
only.
The learned counsel further submitted that in all instances of
taking over of Government Aided Schools or Colleges by the Government,
the services of the approved employees of such aided schools or colleges
were absorbed in Government service with effect from the date of their
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 14
appointment as approved employee. The learned counsel submitted that
the present petitioners are similarly situated with those persons in whose
favour the Government had issued orders for absorption of their service
with effect from the date of their appointment as approved Teachers and
the petitioners are entitled to get the same benefit as are given to those
persons. However, in the present case, the respondents has failed to give
such benefits to the petitioners, who are similarly situated with those
persons, in a most discriminatory manner and in complete violation of the
equality clause enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.
[13] In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Union of India
Vs. K.T. Shashtri" reported in AIR 1990 SC 598 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held as under:
"5. It is this decision which is challenged before us by
the appellants. Mr. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that the Government had a right to prescribe
different conditions of service for the members belonging to the
different units, and merely because the superannuation age of the
members of the DRDS was increased, it could not be held that the
respondent who belonged to another unit, viz. DAQAS, was entitled
to the said benefit. There is no dispute that the Government has
power to vary the service conditions of the members of the services
from time to time. The question involved in the present appeal is,
however, not whether the Government had such power. The
question is whether the respondent was also entitled to the benefit
of the power so exercised in the facts and circumstances of the
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 15
case. The admitted facts are that in 1966 when the respondent was
recruited to the Defence Science Service, the three units belonged
to the said Service and the employees were recruited initially to that
service and then sent to different units. The service conditions of the
employees belonging to the three units were the same and their
services were interchangeable between the three units. The Service
Rules which applied to all the three units were also common, viz.
Defence Science Service Rules. The three units, therefore,
belonged to and constituted one single service. It is later in the year
1979, that the Defence Research Service was reconstituted into
three different services as stated above. However, at that time,
admittedly no option was given to the employees working in the
different units to opt for one or the other of the units. It appears that
those who were already working in either of the three units were
deemed to belong to the respective newly constituted service. This
being so, their service conditions will have to run parallel and no
discrimination can be made between them by an unilateral action.
The classification made between them further has no rational basis
and no nexus of such classification to the object sought to be
achieved has been shown to us by Mr. Subba Rao appearing for the
appellants. In the circumstances, the denial of the benefit of the
enhanced superannuation age to the members of one unit while the
same is granted to the members of the other unit amounts to
discrimination, violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. We are,
therefore, satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is both proper
and valid, and there is no substance in the present appeal. The
appeal is, therefore, dismissed."
[14] It has been submitted by the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents that the decision of the Cabinet taken on
27.11.2015 for conversion of the aided high school into a Government High
School and absorption of the approved staffs in Government service was
referred to the Finance Department and the Finance Department gave its
concurrence to the decision of the Cabinet with the condition that the order
shall be with effect from the date of issue of order by the Administrative
Department and as such, the Administrative Department issued the order
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 16
for absorption of the petitioners in Government service with effect from the
date of conversion of the schools as the Administrative Department has no
power to dilute or divert from the decision of the State Cabinet.
[15] It has also been submitted that the petitioners were appointed by the
Managing Committee of the respective erstwhile aided schools and
thereafter approval about their appointment were obtained from the
concerned Officials of the Department of Education (S) as laid down under
the relevant Rules. It has, accordingly, been submitted that the petitioners,
who were approved Teachers in the Government Aided Private Schools
before their absorption in Government service, are not employees of the
Government and they are mere employees of the Government Aided
Private Schools and as such, they are not entitled to get pensions like
Government employees.
[16] Mr. K. Jagat, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents further submitted that the conversion of 13 (thirteen)
Government Aided High Schools in the Hill Districts as Government High
Schools as well as the absorption of approved staff only, i.e., (three
Graduate Teachers and one LDC), is a policy decision of the Government
and as such, the petitioners have no legal right to claim the entitlement for
giving effect of their services with effect from the date of their appointment
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 17
as approved Teachers in the erstwhile aided schools and accordingly, the
present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
[17] After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length
and after careful examination of the records, this Court finds force and merit
in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. On careful
examination of the memorandum for Cabinet dated 27.11.2015 and the
proposal made there under as well as the State Cabinet decision taken on
27.11.2015 approving the proposal for conversion of 13 (thirteen)
Government Aided High Schools to full-fledged Government High Schools
and absorption of the services of the approved employees (three Graduate
Teachers and one LDC) for each schools, no condition was mentioned
either in the said memorandum for Cabinet or in the said decision of the
Cabinet for effecting such conversion or absorption with effect from the
date of issue of order by the Administrative Department. However, the
Finance Department, while conveying concurrence to the aforesaid State
Cabinet decision, incorporated the condition that the order shall be with
effect from the date of issue of order by the Administrative Department. On
examination of the relevant files of the Finance Department produced by
the respondents, no reason whatsoever were given or disclosed by the
Finance Department for adding or incorporating the condition that the order
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 18
should be with effect from the date of issue of the order by the
Administrative Department. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
view that the said condition imposed by the Finance Department is neither
in conformity with the decision taken by the State Cabinet, nor is it
supported by any reason, hence, the act of the Finance Department
imposing such conditions is arbitrary and therefore legally unsustainable.
[18] In the case of "Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P." reported in
(1991) 1 SCC 212, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"36. The meaning and true import of arbitrariness is more easily
visualised than precisely stated or defined. The question, whether an
impugned act is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to be answered on the
facts and in the circumstances of a given case. An obvious test to
apply is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging
from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of
reasonableness. Where a mode is prescribed for doing an act and
there is no impediment in following that procedure, performance of the
act otherwise and in a manner which does not disclose any
discernible principle which is reasonable, may itself attract the vice of
arbitrariness. Every State action must be informed by reason and it
follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. The rule of law
contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims or
caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time
being. It is trite that 'be you ever so high, the laws are above you'.
This is what men in power must remember, always."
[19] In the case of "East Coast Railway Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao" reported
in (2010) 7 SCC 678 (Supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
as under:-
"23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can
manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the
authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 19
by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of
mind by the person making the order. This may be evident from the
order itself or the record contemporaneously maintained. Application
of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority
making the order. And disclosure is best done by recording the
reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence
of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the
record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the
order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable."
[20] In the case of "Union of India Vs. International Trading Co." reported
in (2003) 5 SCC 437, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para
16 that where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is
no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in different
manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is
reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary. Every State action must be
informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per
se arbitrary.
[21] In the case of "State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar" reported in
(2004) 5 SCC 568, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:-
"7. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, without the
same it becomes lifeless."
"8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
M.R. in Breen V. Amalgamated Engg. Union observed: "the giving
of reason is one of the fundamental of good administration". In
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtree it was observed:
"Failure to give reason amounts to denial of justice". "Reasons are
live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the
controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at".
Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on
recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable
face of the sphinx", it can be its silence, render it virtually
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 20
impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or
exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of
the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound
judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an
application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rational is
that the affected party can know why the decision as gone against
him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling
out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out
"inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a
judicial or quasi-judicial performance".
[22] In the case of "Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India" reported in (1992)
4 SCC 605, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para 47 that -
"47. ....... Undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed
by rule of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public
authority/functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the
order or staring from the record. Reasons are the links between
the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual
conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the
maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and
synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached.
Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or
unfair procedure offending Article 21. But expectations are
envisaged keeping institutional pragmatism into play, conscious
as we are of each other's limitations".
[23] In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in
view of the above-quoted well settled principle of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that imposition of
the condition by the Finance Department for absorption of the services of
the petitioners with effect from the date of issue of order by the
Administrative Department without assigning or disclosing any reason is
per se arbitrary and accordingly unsustainable in law.
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 21
[24] There is yet another aspect of the matter with regard to the allegation
of discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioners by the respondents
in the matter of their absorption in Government service. In this connection,
the petitioners have enclosed two Government orders dated 15.12.1995
and 29.02.2004 in their writ petition, issued in connection with conversion of
the erstwhile Heirok Part-I Aided High School and Aided Sagang High
School into full-fledged Government High Schools and absorption of the
employees of the said schools in Government service. In the said two
orders, the State Government clearly allowed the absorption of the services
of the approved employees of the said two schools in Government services
with effect from the date of entering their services as approved employees
for the purpose of pensionary benefits only. Such absorptions have been
allowed by the State Government as per the provisions of the Manipur Civil
Services (Appointment and other service conditions of employees of
Government Aided/Private Institutions taken over by the Government)
Rules, 1981. The respondents did not deny or controvert the existence or
genuineness of the said two Government orders.
[25] The Government of Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred by
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed rules called the
(Manipur Civil Service Appointment and other service conditions of
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 22
employees of Government Aided/Private Institutions taken over by the
Government) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said rules' for
short) for regulating the appointment and other service conditions of
employees of the Government Aided/Private Institutions taken over by the
Government. In Rules 7 of the said rules, it is provided as under:-
"7. Protection of past service :
(a) The persons so appointed in the Government
service shall be deemed to have been appointed in the same
capacity as in the Government Aided/Private Institutions, i.e.
Temporary, Officiating, Substantive, as the case may be, and the
condition of probation and confirmation shall be deemed to have
been waived in case of substantive or permanent officials.
(b) The service rendered by the employees of the
Government Aided/Private Institutions on an equated post shall be
counted as experience or service required for promotion or direct
recruitment as the case may be."
[26] Undoubtedly, a large number of approved employees of aided
schools/colleges had been absorbed in Government service with effect
from the date of their appointment as approved employees in their
respective aided schools/colleges at the time of conversion of the said
aided schools/colleges by the Government into full-fledged Government
Schools/Colleges in terms of the provisions under Rule 7 of the aforesaid
Rules as quoted hereinabove. The respondents have ignored or are
oblivious of the existence of the said Rules, more particularly the provisions
under Rule 7 of the said Rules, at the time of issuing the absorption orders
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 23
of the petitioners as well as at the time of rejecting the representations
submitted by the petitioners. In view of the above, this Court is of the
considered view that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and treated the
petitioners discriminatorily by refusing to absorb their services with effect
from the date of their appointment as approved Teachers.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed by quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated 07.11.2017 issued by the Principal
Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur and the respondents are
directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption in
Government service with effect from the date on which they have been
approved by the Department of Education (S) as approved Teachers in
their respective erstwhile aided high schools. The whole exercise should be
completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is
disposed of, however, without any costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Lhaineichong
WP(C) No. 137 of 2018 Page 24
