Page |2 vs The State Of Manipur Represented ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 402 Mani

                                                                          Page |1

SHAMURAILATP                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AM SUSHIL                                  AT IMPHAL

SHARMA                                     WP(C) No. 253 of 2021

Date:              1. Oinam Chaoba Singh, aged about 56 years, S/O. Oinam
2022.09.05         Mangi Singh of Bamdiar Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Nambol,
17:07:33 +05'30'   Bishnupur District, Manipur. (Executive Officer Nambol
                   Municipal Council)


                   2. Chanambam Khelen Singh aged about 44 years, S/O.
                   Chanambam Yaima Singh of Mayang Imphal Thana
                   Maning Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Mayang Imphal, Imphal West,
                   Manipur        (Executive      officer    Mayang      Imphal
                   Municipal Council).


                   3. Salam Jugeshwar Singh, aged about 51 years, S/O.
                   Salam Nimai Singh of Kakching Wairi Salam Leikai, P.O. &
                   P.S. Kakching, Manipur. (Executive Officer Kakching
                   Municipal Council).


                   4. Naorem Ramchandra Singh, aged about 52 years, S/O
                   (L) N. Nodiya Singh, Kakching Wairi Khullakpam Leikai,
                   Kakching,      Manipur.      (Executive   Officer   Kakching
                   Municipal Council).


                   5. Yumnam Kulachandra Singh, aged about 56 years, S/O
                   Yumnam Namba Singh of Thoubal Leishangthem, P.O. &
                   P.S. Thoubal, Thoubal District, Manipur. (Executive Officer
                   Thoubal Municipal Council).




                   WP(C) No. 253 of 2021
                                                             Page |2




6. Akoijam Basanta Singh, aged about. 50 years, S/O
Akoijam Nipamacha Singh of Thoubal Kiyam Siphai, P.O &
P.S.       Thoubal,     Manipur          (Executive       Officer
Thoubal Municipal Council).


7. Nepram Hemlet Singh, aged about 44 years, S/O
Nepram Tomba Singh of Bishnupur Ward No.1, Bishnupur,
Bishnupur District, Manipur (Executive Officer Bishnupur
Municipal Council).
                                                  ....... Petitioners
                            -Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the commissioner
   (MAHUD), Government of Manipur, Babupara, 795001.

2. The Commissioner/Secretary (Finance), Government of
    Manipur, Babupara, 795001.

3. The Director, MAHUD, Government of Manipur, North
    AOC, 795001.
                                             ..... Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioner :: Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Adv.

For the Respondents :: Mr. Th. Sukumar, GA

Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 25.07.2022

Date of Judgment & Order :: 05.09.2022

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 Page |3

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

The writ petition has been filed to quash paragraph

No.1 of the impugned order dated 7.11.2017 and to direct the

respondents to pay revised salary to the petitioners by

calculating with effect from 1.1.2010 for cash payment as

prescribed by the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010.

2. Heard Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel

for the petitioners and Th. Sukumar, learned Government

Advocate for the respondents.

3. Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, the learned senior counsel for

the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are now serving in

different Municipal Councils and their service conditions and

salary are also governed by the Rules adopted by the State

Government for the employees from time to time, which

includes pay revision Rules issued from time to time. By placing

reliance upon Section 46 of the Manipur Municipality Act, 1994,

the learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary action,

condition of the service and qualifications in respect of the

employees of a Nagar Panchayat or a Council shall be the same

as applicable to the employees of the State Government.

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 Page |4

4. The learned senior counsel further submitted that

Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 [for short, "ROP

2010"] was produced on 5.5.2010 and the said ROP shall be

deemed to have come into force notionally on 1.1.2006 with

cash payment from 1.4.2010 with effect from 1.1.1996 thereby

giving financial benefits to all employees under the Government

of Manipur with retrospective effect from the date the said pay

revision rules came into force. The said ROP 2010 is also

applicable to the employees of the Municipal Councils.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that though

all the employees in the Municipal Councils were granted the

same revised pay scales prescribed for their respective counter

parts in the State Government Departments retrospectively for

cash payment with all benefits, including arrears of pay etc., for

the ROP 2010, the respondents issued the impugned order

dated 7.11.2017 wherein the employees of the urban local

bodies of Manipur are given cash payment with effect from

1.4.2017 instead with effect from 1.4.2010.

6. The learned senior counsel urged that the revision

of pay scales of the petitioners without benefit of arrears of pay

from 1.4.2010 results to forfeit the right of the petitioners to get

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 Page |5

their entitled arrears and that too without benefit of arrears of

pay with effect form 1.4.2010 as prescribed in the ROP 2010,

which his unreasonable and improper from the part of the

respondents. Thus, a prayer is made to quash paragraph No.1

of the impugned order dated 7.11.2017 and to direct the

respondents to pay the revised salary to the petitioners with

effect from 1.1.2010.

7. Per contra, Mr. Th. Sukumar, the learned

Government Advocate submitted that Rule 2(f) of ROP 2010,

which was notified on 5.5.2010 provides that these Rules shall

not apply to persons whose particulars are not figured in the

Computerised Personal Information System and the

respondent authorities only clarified the rules in the Office

Memorandum dated 7.7.2010 that the revision of pay scales of

the employees of the Autonomous Bodies/Local Bodies/Grand-

in-Aid Institutions/Public Sector Undertaking etc. shall be made

only with the concurrence of Finance Department subject to

availability of sufficient fund for the purpose.

8. He would submit that another Office Memorandum

dated 28.2.2011 was issued regarding grant of revised pay

under ROP 2010 in respect of the employees of Autonomous

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 Page |6

Bodies/Local Bodies/Grand-in-Aid Institutions/Public Sector

Undertaking etc. and as per the above OMs and decisions of

the Cabinet, the following grant-in-aid bodies had been granted

ROP 2010 with immediate effect or 1st day of months without

notional effect:

(i) Manipur Khadi & Village Board w.e.f.

22.09.2016.

(ii) Manipur Remote Sensing Application

Centre (MARSAC) w.e.f. 1.5.2015.

(iii) Manipur Public School, Koirengei w.e.f.

1.4.2016.

(iv) Manipur Tribal Development Corporation,

w.e.f. 4.10.2016.

(v) Manipur Industrial Development

Corporation Limited, w.e.f. 13.10.2016.

(vi) Aided Schools (Both Valley & Hills) w.e.f.

1.10.2019.

9. Arguing so, the learned Government Advocate

submitted that there is no illegality in paragraph No.1 of the

impugned order and, thus, the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed as there is no merit in it.

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 Page |7

10. This Court considered the rival submissions and

also perused the materials available on record.

11. The petitioner challenged paragraph (i) of the

impugned order dated 7.11.2017 contending that all the

employees in the Municipal Councils are granted the same

revised pay scales prescribed for their respective counter parts

in the State Government Departments retrospectively for cash

payment with all benefits including arrears of pay etc. However,

for the ROP 2010, the respondent authorities issued orders that

the employees of the urban local bodies of Manipur are entitled

for cash payment with effect from 1.4.2017, instead with effect

form 1.4.2010. Paragraph (i) of the impugned order is extracted

for ready reference:

"i) Revision shall be made w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and revised pay shall be released in cash with immediate effect."

12. On the other hand, Mr. Th. Sukumar, the learned

Government Advocate submitted that the proposal for

implementation of ROP 2010 was considered by the Cabinet

and the Cabinet meeting took a policy decision and granted

approval to the implementation of ROP 2010 to the employees

and the pensioners of the Urban Local Bodies with effect form

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 Page |8

1.4.2017 and when the matter was referred to the Finance

Department and after due process, the Department of MAHUD,

Government of Manipur issued the impugned order dated

7.11.2016, thereby granting the revised pay structure 2010 to

the employees and the pensioners of 27 Urban Local Bodes in

Manipur. Since the matter relating to effect of cash payment is

within the prerogative of the State Cabinet as well as the

Finance Department, the petitioners have no right to question

it.

13. It is no doubt true that the service conditions and

salary of the petitioners are governed by the Rules adopted by

the State Government from time to time, which includes pay

revision rules issued from time to time.

14. Section 46 of the Manipur Municipality Act

provides:

"46. Disciplinary action against employees of Nagar Panchayat and Council and condition of their service, etc. - (1) An employee of a Nagar panchayat or a Council who is aggrieved by an order of the Chairperson in a disciplinary proceeding against him shall have right to appea to the Nagar Panchayat or the Council

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 Page |9

within thirty days from the date of service of such order on him.

(2) An employee who is aggrieved by an order of the Nagar Panchayat or the Council may prefer an appeal to the State Government against such an order within sixty days from the date of service of such order.

Provided that no appeal against an order other than an order for removal or dismissal shall lie to the State Government.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the disciplinary action, conditions of the service and qualification in respect of the employees of a Nagar Panchayat or a Council shall be the same as applicable to the employees of the State Government, from time to time."

15. Thus, under Section 46(3) of the Manipur

Municipality Act subject to the provisions of the Act, the

disciplinary action, conditions of the service and qualifications

in respect of the employees of a Nagar Panchayat or a Council

shall be the same as applicable to the employees of the State

Government from time to time.

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 P a g e | 10

16. Earlier one Mani Singh and six others, who were

serving as Executive Officers of different Municipal Councils of

the State of Manipur aggrieved by the effective date for revising

of their pay scales with effect from 1.4.2004 for cash payment

under ROP 1999 has been challenged before Gauhati High

Court, Imphal Bench. By the order dated 19.5.2009, the Imphal

Bench of Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition. The

operative portion of the order is quoted hereunder:

"For the foregoing reason, this Court has no alternative but to interfere with the effective date of the revision of pay scale of the petitioners under ROP 1999 w.e.f. 01.06.2004 for the purpose of cash payment under the impugned order dated 22.06.2004. Accordingly, the effective date of the revision of pay scale of the petitioners under ROP 1999 mentioned in the impugned order 22.06.2004 is hereby set aside. The effective date of the revision of pay scale of the petitioners as Executive Officers will be the same, i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as applicable to all the other employees of the different Municipal Councils and also the employees of the Government of Manipur.

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 P a g e | 11

13. This writ petition is allowed. It is also made clear that the respondents are to issue necessary orders within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

17. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent State

preferred W.A.No.27 of 2010 and by the judgment dated

11.08.2020, a Division Bench of Gauhati High Court dismissed

the appeal. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench

held as under:

"16. Section 46(3) referred to above provides that the conditions of service in respect of the employees of a Nagar Panchayat or a Municipal Council shall be the same as applicable to the employees of the State Government from time to time. The learned single Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order has duly taken note of the aforesaid position and the status of the writ petitioners who are admittedly, the employees of the Municipal Council.

17. Above being the position, there could not have been any different treatment to the petitioners merely because their status is Executive Officer in the Municipal Council. If the particular recommendation has been accepted by the authority, said

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 P a g e | 12

recommendation will have to be applied equally to all the employees and there cannot be any discrimination in the matter of effective date solely on the ground of financial crunch."

18. From the above, it is clear that the petitioners

herein are similarly situated. In the present case also the

petitioners are referring Section 46 of the Manipur Municipal Act

and according to the said provision, the service condition of the

employees of local bodies will be the same as application with

the employees of the State Government.

19. As admitted by both the parties, the effective date

of the revision of pay scale of the Government employees under

ROP 2010 is 1.1.2006 with cash payment from 1.4.2010 and

with effect from 1.1.1996 thereby giving financial benefits to all

employees under the Government of Manipur with retrospective

effect from the date of the said pay Revision Rules came into

force. The petitioners established that ROP, 2010 is applicable

for the employees of the Municipal Councils and accordingly,

the revision of pay rules issued from time to time was applicable

since beginning and till date.

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 P a g e | 13

20. Since all the employees in the Municipal Councils

are granted the same revised pay scales prescribed for their

respective counter part in the State Government Departments

retrospectively for cash payment with all benefits including

arrears of pay, but for the ROP 2010, the respondent authorities

failed to award cash payment with effect form 1.4.2010 instead

it had given cash payment with effect from 1.4.2017.

21. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the

concept of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of

India broadly means that there should not be discrimination

between the employees, who were similarly situated and also

that the State cannot discriminated between the similarly

situated person and also that even though Article 14 of the

Constitution of India permit the reasonable classification in

different two books, the classification should be on rational

basis.

22. The case of the petitioners is that there is no

classification between the employees of the same Municipal

Councils, inasmuch as the petitioners who were working as

Assistant Engineers and Executive Engineers respectively of

the different Municipal Councils of the State of Manipur cannot

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 P a g e | 14

be discriminated from the other employees of the same

Municipal Councils in the matter of deciding the effect date of

the revision of their pay scales under the same ROP, 2010.

23. In Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. V. Union

of India and another, (2000) 5 SCC 287, the Apex Court held:

"16. Article 14 declares that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. The concept of equality embodied in Article 14 is also described as doctrine of equality. Broadly speaking, the doctrine of equality means that there should be no discrimination between one person and another, if having regard to the subject matter of legislation, their position in the same. The plain language of Article 14 may suggest that all are equal before the law and the State cannot discriminate between similarly situated person. However, application of the doctrine of equality embodied in that Article has not been that simple. The debate which started in 1950s on the true scope of equality clause is still continuing. In last 58 years, the courts have been repeatedly called upon the adjudicate on the constitutionality of various legislative instruments including those meant for giving effect to the directive

WP(C) No. 253 of 2021 P a g e | 15

principles of State Policy on the ground that same violate the equality clause. It has been the constant refrain of the courts that Article 14 does not prohibit the legislature from classifying apparently similarly situated persons, things or goods into different groups provided that there is rational basis for doing so. The theory of reasonable classification has been involved in large number of cases for repelling challenge to the constitutionality of different legislators."

24. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, affording cash payment with effect from 1.4.2017

to the petitioners is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution of India as also Section 46 of the Manipur

Municipalities Act, 1994, whereas the petitioners are proved to

be entitled to get revised pay scale under ROP 2010 notionally

with effect from 1.1.2006 and cash payment with effect from

1.4.2010, as similarly situated were extended the said benefit

earlier. For the reasons stated above, paragraph (i) of

impugned order dated 7.11.2017, particularly the word "with

effect from 1.4.2017" is liable to be quashed.

25.            In the result,




WP(C) No. 253 of 2021
                                                             P a g e | 16


               (1)      The writ petition is allowed.

               (2)      Paragraph (i) of the impugned order dated

7.11.2017, particularly, the word "with effect

from 1.4.2017" is quashed

(3) The respondents are directed to make cash

payment and arrears, if any to the

petitioners with effect from 1.1.2010 as

prescribed under the Manipur Services

(Revised Pay) Rules, 2010.

(4) The said exercise is directed to be

completed within a period of four weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

               (5)      No costs.



                                                        JUDGE

     FR/NFR

   Sushil




WP(C) No. 253 of 2021