Manipur High Court
A. Surjamukhi Devi vs The State Of Manipur on 8 July, 2022
KABORA Digitally signed Item No. 7
MBAM by KABORAMBAM
SANDEE SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2022.07.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
P SINGH 10:29:54 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
W.A. No. 42 of 2021
A. Surjamukhi Devi, aged about 66 years, w/o. G.A. Saratchandra
Sharma, resident of Brahmapur Guruaribam Leikai, P.O. Imphal &
P.S. Singjamei, Imphal East District, Manipur - 795001.
...Appellant
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Principal Secretary
(Commerce & Industries), Government of Manipur,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
2. The Director, Department of Commerce & Industries,
Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
3. The Director, Handloom & Textiles, Government of Manipur,
P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Manipur - 795001.
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MV MURALIDARAN
For the appellant : Mr. N. Ibotombi, Sr. Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. S. Nepolean, Government Advocate
Date of Order : 08.07.2022
W.A. No. 42 of 2021 Page 1
ORDER (ORAL)
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.):
[1] The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 881 of 2019 is in appeal,
aggrieved by the dismissal of her writ petition by a learned Judge of this Court
vide order dated 30.04.2021.
[2] Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
appellant/writ petitioner; and Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the respondents.
[3] The appellant, a casual Handloom staff in the Directorate of
Industries, Government of Manipur, was absorbed in officiating capacity in the
post of Data Compiler-cum-Registration Assistant vide order dated 18.12.1987.
Along with her, four others, including Kakchingtabam Swarnalata Devi and
Adkikarimayum Kiranbala Devi, were also absorbed at that time. Civil Rule No. 55
of 1991 was filed by the Industries Department Grade-III Officiating Employees
Association before the Gauhati High Court espousing the cause of these five
persons and seeking their regularization in service. The said writ petition was
disposed of by the Gauhati High Court on 28.09.1994 directing that, as soon as
regular vacancies arose in the post of Data Compiler-cum-Registration Assistant in
the direct recruitment quota, the aforestated five persons should be
accommodated, subject to their possessing requisite qualifications at the time of
their initial appointment. However, no steps were taken in that regard by the
authorities. The appellant along with K. Swarnalata Devi and A. Kiranbala Devi
submitted representation dated 08.01.2015 seeking regularization of their
W.A. No. 42 of 2021 Page 2
services as Data Compilers-cum-Registration Assistants (Handloom) on
humanitarian grounds.
[4] Thereupon, the Director, Commerce & Industries, Government of
Manipur, addressed a letter to the Secretary/Commissioner (Commerce &
Industries) Government of Manipur, requesting him to consider regularization of
the officiating services of these persons for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
However, the Under Secretary (Commerce & Industries), Government of Manipur,
vide letter dated 07.12.2015, informed him that the Department of Personnel had
not agreed to the proposal as there was no clear Government policy for such
regularization of officiating staff.
[5] Aggrieved thereby, K. Swarnalata Devi and A. Kiranbala Devi filed
W.P. (C) No. 78 of 2016 before this Court. The appellant did not join them,
perhaps due to the reason that she had retired from service in the year 2015,
upon attaining the age of superannuation. The said writ petition was disposed of
on 19.01.2018, taking note of the fact that the two ladies had rendered services
for more than 30 years and directing that the authorities should consider their
cases for regularization within a time frame. K. Swarnalata Devi had also retired
by then but A. Kiranbala Devi was still in service. Pursuant thereto, the Director of
Handloom & Textiles, Government of Manipur, issued order dated 31.05.2019
regularizing the services of K. Swarnalata Devi with retrospective effect.
[6] It is only thereafter that the present appellant, who had retired
three years prior thereto, started agitating her cause. According to her, she did
not know of the letter dated 15.01.2016 till she received reply dated 06.07.2018
from the Director of Trade, Commerce & Industries, Government of Manipur, in
W.A. No. 42 of 2021 Page 3
response to her application dated 17.05.2018. Further, having heard of the
retrospective regularization of K. Swarnalata Devi, who had retired on
31.03.2016, the appellant submitted representation dated 28.08.2019 to the
authorities for reconsideration of her case. However, the same was rejected vide
letter dated 10.10.2019. Aggrieved thereby, she filed W.P. (C) No. 881 of 2019.
[7] Upon due consideration, the learned Judge opined that there was
delay of more than two years on the part of the appellant and that she had
waited for the result of W.P. (C) No. 78 of 2016 filed by her colleagues. The
learned Judge relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others [(2015) 1
SCC 347] and observed that the case of the appellant would be covered by the
exception to the normal rule, laid down therein. The learned Judge was therefore
not inclined to grant her relief on par with her colleagues, whose writ petition he
had allowed earlier.
[8] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, would contend that the
delay in Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra), was much longer than the delay
attributable to the appellant and the said decision was therefore distinguishable
on facts. This Court is not inclined to accept this argument. Normally, the
principle laid down in a decision would constitute the ratio to be applied in future
cases and the facts on the strength of which the said ratio was culled out cannot
be a distinguishing factor, in itself, for discarding the ratio. In Arvind Kumar
Srivastava (supra), the Supreme Court noted in clear terms that the normal rule
would be to treat all identically situated persons alike by extending the same
benefit to them, so as to avoid discrimination that would be violative of article 14
W.A. No. 42 of 2021 Page 4
of the Constitution. However, this principle was held to be subject to well
recognized exceptions in the form of laches, delay and acquiescence. The
Supreme Court pointed out that those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced with the same and chose to wake
up after a long delay, only because their counterparts had approached the Court
earlier and succeeded in their efforts, could not claim the benefit of the said
judgment being extended to them. The reason being that such persons would be
treated as fence-sitters and laches, delay and acquiescence would be a valid
ground to dismiss their claim.
[9] In the light of this settled legal position and the admitted fact that
the appellant, having retired from service in 2015, did not choose to keep herself
informed of the developments or choose to join her colleagues in W.P. (C) No. 78
of 2016, cannot now ask for redressal of her grievance belatedly by seeking parity
with them.
[10] That being the said, it may be noted that in the affidavit-in-
opposition filed in the writ petition, the State authorities did not choose to take
the ground that there was delay on the part of the appellant and that she was
liable to be non-suited on that ground. It was only on the strength of the caselaw
cited before him, that the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that
there was delay on the part of the appellant. It is, however, indisputable on facts
that the appellant stands identically situated with K. Swarnalata Devi and A.
Kiranbala Devi in all respects and she alone has been denied pensionary benefits,
despite rendering long service as was the case with the other two ladies. As the
authorities did not hold the delay on her part against her in their affidavit-in-
W.A. No. 42 of 2021 Page 5
opposition, it would be appropriate that they consider the claim of the appellant
for parity with them at this stage. The earlier rejection of the appellant's claim
was not in the context of similar relief having already been granted to the other
two ladies, who were identically situated, and therefore that is a factor which
would have to be considered by the authorities while reconsidering their earlier
decision.
[11] The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of, permitting the appellant
to make a representation setting out the full facts and seeking relief by drawing
parity with the cases of K. Swarnalata Devi and A. Kiranbala Devi. The said
representation shall be considered by the authorities concerned sympathetically
and in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of such
representation.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
W.A. No. 42 of 2021 Page 6
