Manipur High Court

(Through Video Conference) vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 31 January, 2022

          Digitally signed                                                           Page |1
SHAMUR by
         SHAMURAILATP
AILATPA AM SUSHIL                                                                      Item No. 14

M SUSHIL SHARMA
         Date:                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
SHARMA 2022.02.02                                   AT IMPHAL
          20:07:45 +05'30'

                                                   WP(C) No. 85 of 2022
                                                (Through Video conference)

                               M.C. Santosh, aged about 60 years, S/o (Late) M. Nilo
                               Singh of Wangkhei Yonglan Leirak, P.O & P.S.
                               Porompat, Imphal East District, Manipur, working as
                               Legal officer,    Secretariat,    Revenue     Department,
                               Government of Manipur.


                                                                             ...Petitioner
                                                       -Versus-

                     1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal
                             Secretary   /Commissioner/          Secretary    (Revenue),
                             Government of Manipur, office at Old Secretariat,
                             Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District,
                             Manipur, Pin-795001.


                     2. The Directorate of Settlement and Land Records,
                             Manipur, office at Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,
                             Imphal West District, Manipur-795004.
                                                                .....Official Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN 31.01.2022

[1] I heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Sh. Shyam Sharma, learned GA for the

respondents.

Page |2

[2] The writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition

seeking the prayer as follows :-

"(i) to admit the present writ petition.

(ii) to issue rule nisi calling upon the respondent to show

cause as to why prayer made by the petitioner shall not

be granted in the fact & circumstances of the present

case.

(iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or

any other appropriate writ/order/direction directing the

respondents to allow the humble petitioner to continue

in service as OSD/Legal post-retirement as has been

done in case of one Shri Ch. Rabikumar Singh,

OSD/Legal in the Revenue Department, Government

of Manipur, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the present petition.

(iv) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or

any other appropriate writ/order/direction directing the

respondents to consider and dispose of the

representation/application dated 20.01.2022 (AT

ANNEXURE-A/13) by issuing reason and speaking

order favourably within a stipulated period of time, in Page |3

view of the facts and circumstances of the present

petition.

(v) if no cause is shown or insufficient cause is shown,

make the rule absolute.

(vi) to call for the entire relevant records.

(vii) to pass any other/writ / directions/order which the

Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the present case."

[3] When the matter is taken up, Mr. Hemchandra, learned

senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the order

dated 07.01.2022 the writ petitioner by namely, Shri Maibamcha

Santosh, Legal Officer service is stands terminated w.e.f. 31.01.2022

(AN).

[4] Mr. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel further argued

that similar nature of this writ petitioner, one Mr. Chabungbam

Rabikumar Singh who originally appointed as Legal Officer in the

Directorate of Land Records, Manipur was directed to be retired on

30.11.2018 (AN) and his service also stands terminated w.e.f.

30.11.2018 (AN). Before his retirement the said Mr. Rabikumar was

made his representation to its department with a request to extend

his service.

Page |4

[5] Considering the request made by Mr. Rabikumar who

retired on 30.11.2018 the Chief Secretary and Secretariat Cabinet

has passed an order on 02.02.2019 in which the Cabinet will be held

on 04.02.2019 in the Cabinet Hall of the Minister's Secretariat at 4:30

P.M. to discuss the following agenda No. 4 i.e. the re-engagement of

Mr. Ch. Rabikumar Singh, (Retd.) Legal Officer of Revenue

Department. Accordingly, his service was reengaged by the authority

concerned.

[6] Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner

represented that this petitioner also made representation to the

respondents authority on 20.01.2022 with a request that he may be

reengaged/extended subsequent to his retirement but his

representation dated 20.01.2022 was not considered. Therefore, the

petitioner has approached this Court and seeking the prayer as

stated above.

[7] By narrating the above, Mr. Hemchandra, the learned

senior counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court that though the

petitioner was permitted to retire on 31.01.2022 (i.e. today) the

respondents may be directed that the representation dated

20.01.2022 may be considered by the respondents authority within a

shorter period of time and the writ petition may be disposed of

accordingly.

Page |5

[8] Mr. Sh. Shyam Sharma, learned GA for the

respondents represented that before this Court that though as per

Rule, the petitioner ought to have retired on 31.01.2022 and there

was no rule in existence for reengagement of the petitioner after his

service. Therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to seek any

reengagement of his service.

[9] Mr. Sh. Shyam Sharma, learned GA for the

respondents to support his case produced the judgments passed by

this Court in WP(C) No. 638 of 2020 dated 22.01.2021 which was

continued in WA No. 5 of 2021 dated 24.02.2021 in which the

reengagement of the employee is contravention of the earlier policy

decision of the State Government dated 20.04.2000 and 11.05.2017

which imposed a complete ban on extension of service/re-

employment of government servant beyond the age of

superannuation and hence, this writ petitioner is not entitled for

extension of service.

[10] In the said writ petition this Court has passed the order

as follows :

"[32] Moreover, the engagement of the respondent No. 4 as Director of Medical and Health Services, Manipur on contract basis after his retirement is also totally in contravention of the earlier policy decision of the State Government Page |6

dated 20.04.2000 and 11.05.2017, which imposed a complete ban on extension of service/re- employment of government servant beyond the age of superannuation.

In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the engagement of the respondent No. 4 as Director of Medical and Health Services on contract basis after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation is not only in contravention of the Statutory Rules under FR 56

(d) and the earlier policy decision of the State Government imposing complete ban on extension of service/re-employment of government servant beyond the age of superannuation, but it also infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. Accordingly the engagement of the respondent No. 4 as Director of Medical and Health Services, Manipur on contract basis is quashed and set aside.

[33] The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment as Director of Medical and Health Services, Manipur, within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. This direction has been given keeping in view that the writ petitioner is also going to retire from service by the end of February 2021.

Page |7

With the above directions and observations, the present writ petition is allowed. Parties are to bear their own costs."

[11] Mr. Sh. Shyam Sharma, learned GA also represented

that against the order passed by this Court in the above writ petition

the petitioner in that writ petition has filed the writ appeal before the

Hon'ble Division Bench in WA No. 4 of 2021 and the Government of

Manipur filed in W.A. No. 5 of 2021 which was also confirmed by the

Hon'ble Division Bench on 24.02.2021.

[12] Therefore, Mr. Sh. Shyam Sharma, learned GA for the

respondents submitted that as per the above judgments and the

Cabinet decisions dated 20th April, 2000 and 11.05.2017 the

petitioner have no right to reengage of his service and hence, he

prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

[13] Since both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the

respondents agreed to dispose of the writ petition at the admission

stage itself without going into the merits and demerits of the case and

hence, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court

to dispose the writ petition by giving direction to the respondents to

pass appropriate orders on his representation dated 25.01.2000 in

which the petitioner will be satisfied. Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA

also agreed for the same.

Page |8

[14] In the above circumstances and hearing of both the

counsel, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, I am

inclined to pass the following orders :

a) the writ petition is disposed of.

b) the respondent No.1 i.e., State of Manipur represented by

the Principal Secretary / Commissioner / Secretary

(Revenue), Government of Manipur, office at Old

Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West

District, Manipur, Pin-795001 is directed to consider and

to pass appropriate speaking orders on the representation

dated 20th January, 2022 in the light of the order dated

02.02.2019 in respect of one Mr. Chabungbam

Rabikumar Singh and pass appropriate speaking order.