Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... vs Oinam Chaoba Singh on 4 November, 2024
Digitally signed by
KABORAMBA KABORAMBAM
M SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
Date: 2024.11.08
SINGH 16:46:07 +05'30' Item No. 53
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.A. No. 30 of 2024
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.
Appellants
-Versus-
1. Oinam Chaoba Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o Oinam
Mangi Singh of Bamdiar Mayai Leikai, P.O. & P.S.
Nambol, Bishnupur District, Manipur (Assistant
Engineer, Nambol Municipal Council) 795134.
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 (Assistant Engineer, Mayang Imphal
Municipal Council)-795132.
3. Salam Jugeshwar Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o
Salam Nimai Singh of Kakching Wairi Salam Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Kakching, Manipur (Assistant Engineer,
Kakching Municipal Council) - 795103.
4. Naorem Ramchandra Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o
(L) N. Nodiya Singh, Kakching Wairi Khullakpam Leikai,
Kakching, Manipur (Executive Engineer, Kakching
Municipal Council)-795103.
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
Engineer, Thoubal Municipal Council) - 795138.
W.A. No. 30 of 2024 Page 1
6. Akoijam Basanta Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o
Akoijam Nipamacha Singh of Thoubal Kiyam Siphai,
P.O. & P.S. Thoubal (Assistant Engineer, Thoubal
Municipal Council) - 795138.
7. Nepram Hemlet Singh, aged about 44 years, S/o
Nepram Tomba Singh of Bishnupur Ward No. 1,
Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur (Assistant
Engineer, Bishnupur Municipal Council) 795125.
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU KABUI
For the appellant :: Mr. Athouba Khaidem, senior advocate,
assisted by Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, Dy. G.A.
For the respondents :: Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. L. Raju, Advocate
Date of Judgment & :: 04.11.2024
Order
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Justice Siddharth Mridul, C J:
[1] The present writ appeal has been instituted on behalf of the State of
Manipur represented by the Commissioner (MAHUD) assailing the correctness of
the impugned judgment and order dated 05.09.2022 rendered by the learned single
Judge in W.P. (C) No. 253 of 2021 [Oinam Chaoba Singh and others Vs. State of
Manipur and others]; whereby it was directed as follows:
"(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
W.A. No. 30 of 2024 Page 2
(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
[2] The brief facts as are necessary for the determination of the present
writ appeal are elaborated herein below:
(i) The respondents herein; the original writ petitioners; are
serving officers of different Municipal Councils in the State of
Manipur and asseverate that their service conditions and salary
are governed by the Rules adopted by the State Government
for the employees of the Municipal Corporations from time to
time, which includes pay revision Rules issued from time to
time.
(ii) The respondents relying on the provision of Section 46 of the
Municipality Act, 1994, instituted the subject writ petition
seeking a writ of certiorari to quash paragraph No. (i) of the
order issued by the Governor of Manipur, dated 07.11.2017 in
relation to grant of revised pay structure under the Manipur
Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010, in respect of the
employees and pensioners of all the 27 (twenty seven) Urban
Local Bodies (ULBs) of Manipur.
(iii) The writ petitioners further sought a direction to the official
respondents to pay revised salary to the respondents by
W.A. No. 30 of 2024 Page 3
calculating revised pay in cash with effect from 01.01.2010, as
prescribed by the said Rules.
[3] In order to appreciate the issue that arises for consideration in this
proceeding , it would be appropriate to extract the provision of Section 46 of the
Manipur Municipality Act, 1994, which reads as follows:
"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 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."
[4] A perusal of the provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 46 of the
Manipur Municipality Act, 1994, extracted hereinabove would clearly and
unequivocally stipulate that subject to other provisions of the said Act, inter alia
conditions of services in respect of the employees of a Nagar Panchayat or a
Council; as the original writ petitioners admittedly are; were to be the same as
applicable to the employees of the State Government, from time to time.
[5] In this behalf, there is no quarrel with the position that employees of
the State Government as well as other employees of the different Municipal
Councils serving as Executive Officers are the beneficiaries of revision of their pay
scales with effect from 1st January, 2006.
W.A. No. 30 of 2024 Page 4
[6] In this behalf, it would also be apposite to observe that Gauhati High
Court, Imphal Bench, vide its order dated 19.05.2009, allowed a writ petition filed
by one Mani Singh and six others, serving as Executive Officers of different
Municipal Councils of the State of Manipur, directing therein that the effective date
of revision of pay scale of the petitioners therein as Executive Officers, will be the
same; i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.1996; as applicable to all the other employees of different
Municipal Councils and also the employees of the Government of Manipur.
This order was challenged by way of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the said SLP instituted on behalf of the State of Manipur was dismissed.
[7] The learned Single Judge having heard the opposing stand taken by
the parties, agreed with the original writ petitioners, inasmuch as, that the latter
were similarly situated as the Executive Officers of different Municipal Councils of
the State of Manipur and also the employees of the Government of Manipur; and
were consequently entitled to revision of pay scale under ROP 2010 with effect
from 01.01.2006 with cash payment from 01.04.2010.
[8] The writ petition was accordingly allowed issuing directions as
extracted (supra).
[9] The State of Manipur has assailed the correctness of the impugned
judgment and order primarily on the assertion that the Executive Officers of the
Municipal Council are of different cadre and belong to Manipur Municipal Services
(MMAS), duly recruited through MPSC.
[10] We find ourselves completely unable to accept the above contention
for the reason that Section 46 of the said Act, in clear and unequivocal terms,
W.A. No. 30 of 2024 Page 5
stipulates that conditions of service in respect of employees of a Municipal Council
shall be the same as applicable to the employees of the State Government from
time to time. In other words, the said provision precludes the State Government
from discriminating between one set of employees of the Municipal Corporation
from another set of employees of the same Corporation on the basis of their
belonging to different cadres.
[11] Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the State of Manipur, would then invite our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Amarjeet Singh and others vs. Devi Ratan and others,
reported as (2010) 1 SCC 417 and in particular para 28 of the report, to urge
that since the original petitioners had not challenged the office Memorandum dated
07.07.2010 as well as the ROP dated 05.05.2010 not been challenged, they were
disentitled from challenging the consequential order dated 07.11.2017 impugned
in the said writ petition.
[12] In our considered view, the submission made on behalf of the
appellants cannot be accepted since the facts and circumstances of the decision in
Amarjeet Singh (Supra) were entirely different and dealt with seniority premised
on two different DPCs conducted under different Rules on different criterion, where
it was held that seniority which is consequential to the promotion could not be
challenged without challenging the promotion.
[13] The ratio has no application to the facts and circumstances of the
present case inasmuch as the present respondents are admittedly employees of
the same Municipal Corporation and cannot be artificially separated into distinct
categories as has been done.
W.A. No. 30 of 2024 Page 6
[14] It is also incumbent upon us to observe that the Office Memorandum
dated 07.07.2010 as well as the ROP dated 05.05.2010 pressed into service by the
State of Manipur are merely executive instructions and there can be no quarrel with
the legal position that an executive fiat cannot override express provisions of the
Act.
[15] In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the
present appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep
W.A. No. 30 of 2024 Page 7
