Manipur High Court
Dr. Usham Dharmaraj Meetei vs The State Of Manipur on 21 October, 2024
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 736 of 2019
Dr. Usham Dharmaraj Meetei, aged about 49 years,
S/o U. Dhananjoy Singh, a resident of Khurai Laishram
Leikai, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur - 795010
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur, represented by the Commissioner/
Secretary (Health), Government of Manipur, New
Secretariat, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur, Pin - 795001.
2. The Director of Health Services, Government of Manipur,
Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, Imphal West District,
Manipur - 795004.
3. The Commissioner (Finance), Government of Manipur, New
Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West
District, Manipur - 79001.
4. The Accountant General, Manipur.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner :: Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Advocate
asstd. by Mr. L. Raju, Advocate
For the respondents :: Mr. Phungyo Zingkhai, Deputy GA &
Mr. S. Suresh, Advocate
Date of hearing :: 17-09-2024
Date of judgment & order :: 21-10-2024
WP(C) No. 736 of 2019 Contd.../-
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[1] Heard Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. L. Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. Phungyo
Zingkhai, learned Deputy GA appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2
and 3 and Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No. 4.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the validity
and legality of the order dated 09-08-2016 issued by the Commissioner,
(Health & FW), Government of Manipur, for recovery of an amount of
Rs. 5,70,475/-(Rupees five lakh seventy thousand four hundred and
seventy five) from the petitioner as provided under Rule 63(1)(i) of the
Manipur Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979 on the ground that he
did not rendered three years mandatory service under the State
Government after returning from his PG studies coupled with a prayer
for directing the respondents to release the Pro-rata (Pension) liability of
the petitioner for the service period from 16-03-1996 to 22-03-2007.
[2] The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner
was initially appointed as Manipur Health Services (MHS) Grade - IV
Medical Officer on adhoc basis by an order dated 11-03-1996.
Subsequently, by an order dated 21-12-1998 issued by the Secretariat,
Health Department, the adhoc service of the petitioner was regularised
retrospectively w.e.f. the date of his initial adhoc appointment, i.e.,
11-03-1996. While the petitioner was serving as Medical Officer
WP(C) No. 736 of 2019 Contd.../-
Grade -IV, he was selected for undergoing Post-Graduate course at the
Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal and the Director
of Health Services, Government of Manipur, nominated the petitioner as
a Government nominee for admission to the Post-Graduate course in
Pharmacology for the academic session 2001-2002. The petitioner
successfully completed his Post-Graduate course in the month of
August, 2004 and thereafter, he continued to serve as a Medical Officer
Grade-IV in the Health Department upto 22-03-2007, for about two years
and seven months after completion of his Post-Graduate course.
[3] While the petitioner was serving as a Medical Officer Grade-IV
in the Health Department, Manipur, he obtained a 'No-Objection
Certificate' from the competent authority for appearing in a selection
test for appointment as a Demonstrator in RIMS. On being selected,
the Director of RIMS issued an order dated 01-02-2007 appointing the
petitioner as a Demonstrator in the Department of Pharmacology, RIMS
in a temporary capacity w.e.f. the date he joined for duty. On receiving
a copy of the said appointment order, the petitioner submitted an
application dated 26-02-2007 to the Secretary (Health), Government of
Manipur, requesting to issue release order so as to enable him to join
in RIMS. The request made by the petitioner was allowed by the
Government by issuing an order dated 22-03-2007 and released the
petitioner from Manipur Health Services with immediate effect for joining
as Demonstrator in the Department of Pharmacology, RIMS, Imphal. In
the said order, it is also mentioned that the petitioner's past service in
WP(C) No. 736 of 2019 Contd.../-
Manipur Health Services can be counted as qualifying service in RIMS
under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as he
applied for the post of Demonstrator with due permission from the State
Government.
[4] While the petitioner was serving as a Demonstrator in RIMS,
the Office of the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A&E), Manipur,
wrote a letter dated 11-02-2010 to the Deputy Secretary (Health & FW),
Government of Manipur, requesting the latter to arrange for discharging
the petitioner's Pro-rata (Pension) liability amounting to Rs. 4,97,706/-
(Rupees four lakh ninety seven thousand seven hundred and six) only
for the period of service from 16-03-1996 to 22-03-2007 rendered to the
Government of Manipur to RIMS debiting to MH-207: Pension and other
Retirement benefits.
When there was inordinate delay in releasing the petitioner's
Pro-rata (Pension) liability, he filed a writ petition being WP(C) 777
of 2015 in this High Court and during the pendency of the said writ
petition, the Secretariat, Health Department issued the impugned order
dated 09-08-2016. In para. 1 and 2 of the said impugned order,
the Government accorded Administrative Approval and Expenditure
Sanction to an amount of Rs. 4,97,706/- as Pro-rata (Pension) of the
petitioner, however in para. 3 and 4 of the said impugned order, it is
stated that the sanctioned amount of Rs. 4,97,706/- will be adjusted
against the amount of Rs. 5,70,475/- (Rupees five lakh seventy thousand
four hundred and seventy five) only recoverable from the petitioner under
WP(C) No. 736 of 2019 Contd.../-
Rule 63(1)(i) of the Manipur Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979 as the
petitioner did not rendered three years mandatory service under the
State Government after returning from his PG studies and that the
shortfall amount of Rs. 72,769/- (Rupees seventy two thousand seven
hundred and sixty nine) shall be recovered from the petitioner. Having
been aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the
offending portion of the said impugned order.
[5] The stand of the Government is that under Rule 63(1) of the
Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Leave Rules", for short) which have been adopted as Manipur Civil
Services Leave Rules, 1979, it has been laid down that if a Government
servant resigns or retires from service or otherwise quits service without
returning to duty after a period of study leave or within a period of three
years after such return to duty or fails to complete the course of study
and is thus unable to furnish the certificates as required under sub-rule
(5) and Rule 53, he shall be required to refund - (i) the actual amount of
leave salary, study allowance, cost of fees, travelling and other
expenses, if any, incurred by the Government together with interest
thereon at rates for the time being in force on Government loans, from
the date of demand, before his resignation is accepted or permission to
retire is granted or his quitting service otherwise.
When the petitioner leave his service as a Medical Officer
Grade-IV under the State Government and joined as a Demonstrator of
Pharmacology in RIMS, he had rendered service under the State
WP(C) No. 736 of 2019 Contd.../-
Government for only about two years and seven months after returning
from his PG studies and as such, he did not fulfill the requirements to
serve the mandatory period of three years as provided under Rule 63(1)
of the Leave Rules. Hence, the petitioner is liable to refund the leave
salary as per rules.
[6] Under the proviso to Rule 63(1) of the Leave Rules, it is, inter
alia, provided that except in the case of employees who faile to complete
the course of study nothing in this rule shall apply - (b) to a Government
servant who, after return to duty from study leave, is deputed to serve in
any Statutory or Autonomous Body or Institution under the control of the
Government and is subsequently permitted to resign from service under
the Government with a view to his permanent absorption in the said
statutory or Autonomous Body or Institution in the public interest.
[7] In the present case, after successfully completing his Post-
Graduate studies in the month of August, 2004, the petitioner rejoined
his service and continue to serve as a Medical Officer Grade-IV in the
Health Department, Government of Manipur, for about two years and
seven months. Thereafter, after obtaining prior approval from the
competent authorities, the petitioner participated in the selection process
for recruitment of a Demonstrator (Pharmacology) in RIMS. On being
selected, the Director, RIMS, issued an order dated 01-02-2007
appointing the petitioner as a Demonstrator in the Department of
Pharmacology, RIMS w.e.f. the date of joining duty. In view of the
said appointment order, the petitioner submitted an application dated
WP(C) No. 736 of 2019 Contd.../-
26-02-2007 to the Government of Manipur requesting for issuing a
Release Order so as to enable him to join in RIMS and the said request
was allowed by the Government by issuing an order dated 22-03-2007.
By the said order, the petitioner was not only released from Manipur
Health Services with immediate effect for joining as Demonstrator in the
Department of Pharmacology, RIMS but also allowing to count his past
service in Manipur Health Services as qualifying service in RIMS under
the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as the
petitioner applied for the post of Demonstrator with due permission from
the State Government.
[8] Taking into consideration the above factual position, this court
is of the considered view that the Government of Manipur released the
petitioner from Manipur Health Services so as to enable him to join as a
Demonstrator (Pharmacology) in RIMS and also allowing to count his
past service in the Manipur Health Services as qualifying service in
RIMS. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that there were
continuity of service of the petitioner from Manipur Health Services to
RIMS without any break. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view
that the provisions of Rule 63(1) of the Leave Rules will not be applicable
in the case of the petitioner in view of the proviso (b) to Rule 63(1) of the
said rules. Moreover, taking into consideration the totality of facts and
circumstances of the present case, this court is also of the considered
view that the application of the provisions of Rule 63(1) of the Leave
Rules to the petitioner without considering the proviso appended thereto
WP(C) No. 736 of 2019 Contd.../-
is too harsh and inhuman and this court cannot give its countenance to
such action of the State authorities. In the result, the present writ petition
is allowed with the following directions:-
(i) The impugned para. No. 3 and 4 of the order dated 09-08-2016
issued by the Commissioner (Health & FW), Government of
Manipur is hereby quashed and set aside; and
(ii) The respondents are directed to release the Pro-rata (Pension)
of the petitioner as mentioned in para. No. 1 and 2 of the
aforesaid order dated 09-08-2016 to RIMS as early as possible
but not later than two months from today.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is
disposed of. There will be no order as to cost.
JUDGE
FR / NFR
Devananda
WP(C) No. 736 of 2019 Contd.../-
