IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL. W.P. (C) No. 951 of 2015

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL. W.P. (C) No. 951 of 2015"

Camilla Sullivan
5 years ago
Views:

1 FR/NFR P a g e 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL 1. Roshnichand Tourangbam, aged about 42 years, W/o Kshetrimayum Surchandra Singh, resident of Malom Tuliyaima, P.O. Tulihal, P.S. Nambol, District: Imphal West, 2. Ch. Nirmala Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o Mutum Oken Singh, resident of Kongba Kshetri Leikai, P.O. Singjamei, P.S. Irilbung, District: Imphal East, 3. T. Chingngaihlian, aged about 43 years, W/o (L) David Hauzel, resident of Lamphelpat, Type III, Cp. 20, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District: Imphal West, 4. A. Thajabi Devi, aged about 55 years, W/o N. Biren Singh, Phayeng Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District: Imphal West, 5. Pratibha Khoyumthem, aged about 44 years, W/o Pradip Phanjoubam, resident of Wangkhei Konsam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District: Imphal East, 6. R.K. Banita Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o A. Bimol Singh, resident of Keishamthong Ahanthem Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. & District: Imphal West, 7. Th. Ibemhal Devi, aged about 56 years, W/o K. Subhaschandra Singh, resident of Nongpok Lourembam, BPO Yairipok, P.S. Nongpok Sekmai, District: Thoubal, 8. Adaha P. Chapullo, aged about 51 years, D/o (L) H. Chopullo, resident of Dewlahland, P.O. Lamlong, P.S. and District: Imphal East District, 9. Th. Romita Devi, aged about 42 years, W/o Laishram Deben Singh, resident of Naoremthong Laishram Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, District: Imphal West,

2 P a g e N. Jamini Devi, aged about 53 years, W/o Th. Muhindro Singh, resident of Kakching Ningthou Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Kakching, District: Thoubal, 11. Ksh. Sharmila Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o M. Ingobi Singh, resident of Yairipok Bishnunaha Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Yairipok, District: Thoubal, 12. Th. Kamala Devi, aged about 44 years, W/o S. Lolendro Singh, resident of Khurai Konsam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District: Imphal East, 13. S. Tampha Devi, aged about 47 years, W/o Kh. Shitaljit Singh, resident of Singjamei Wangma Kshetri Leikai, P.O. Singjamei, P.S. Irilbng, District: Imphal East, 14. S. Geetanjali Devi, aged about 52 years, W/o L. Jayanta Singh, resident of Yairipok Laimanai Thongkhong, P.O. & P.S. Yairipok, District: Thoubal, 15. R.K. Anita Devi, aged about 48 years, W/o N. Bobo Singh, resident of Nagamapal Paonam Leikai, Opposite Kasturi Bridge, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District: Imphal West, 16. D.P. Tungdar Maring, aged about 47 years, W/o Sh. Mathew, resident of Khukarthil Village, P.O. & P.S. Pallel, District: Chandel, 17. Y. Chaobihal Devi, aged about 51 years, W/o S. Sanahal Luwang, resident of Oinam Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, District: Bishnupur, 18. I. Ranjana Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o M. Lokendro Singh, resident of Heirangoithong Yangam Leirak, P.O. Singjamei, P.S. Kakwa, District: Imphal West, 19. L. Sunitibala Devi, aged about 42 years, D/o (L) L. Ibotombi Singh, resident of Nongmeibung Porompat Chuthek, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District: Imphal East, 20. T. Leina Devi, aged about 47 years, W/o M. Bheighyachandra Singh, resident of Palace Compound, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, District: Imphal East,

3 P a g e Elsie Chosa Mayon, aged about 50 years, W/o Nelson Ngoruw, resident of (Komlathabi) Kapaam, P.O. & P.S. Pallel and Chandel, District: Chandel, 22. A. Bimolata Devi, aged about 53 years, W/o L. Amusana Singh, resident of Lalambung Makhong Takhellambam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District: Imphal West, 23. Loktongbam Phajabi, aged about 51 years, W/o Sajengbam Momon Singh, resident of New Keithelmanbi, P.O. Langjing, P.S. Patsoi, District: Imphal West, 24. L. Aruna Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o K. Santosh, resident of Thongju Part II, P.O. Canchipur, P.S. Kakwa, District: Imphal West, 25. Naorem Babyrani Devi, aged about years, W/o L. Ingocha Singh, resident of Chingarel Tejpur Imphal City, Imphal East District, 26. Mayanglambam Victoria Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o M. Aken Singh, resident of Khundrakpam Awang Leikai, P.O. Pangei, P.S. Heingang, District: Imphal West, 27. M. Arundhati, aged about 54 years, W/o (L) A. Attelee, resident of Loklaobung Yumnam Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Singjamei, District: Imphal West, 28. T. Allen Chanu, aged about 42 years, W/o L. Sharmeswor Singh, resident of Keishamthong Laisom Leirak, P.O. Imphal, P.S. & District, Imphal West, 29. L. Eudy, aged about years, W/o P.S. Leltung, resident of Rengkai Venthland, P.O., P.S. & District: Churachandpur, 30. T. Mema Devi, aged about 54 years, W/o Madhumangol Singh, resident of Yairipok Angtha Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Yairipok, District: Thoubal, 31. Rebec Darneimoi, aged about 48 years, W/o PC Lalngailiana, resident of Rengkai Tahilane, P.O., P.S. & District: Churachandpur,

4 P a g e Sh. Renubala Devi, aged about 54 years, W/o A. Sarat Sharma, resident of Kongba Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, District: Imphal West, 33. Mumtaz Begum, aged about 51 years, W/o Ajimuddin Shaha, resident of Kairang Mamang Leikai, P.O. Pangei, P.S. Heingnag, District: Imphal East, 34. S. Aruni Devi, aged about 54 years, W/o S. Modhu Singh, resident of Nongpok Sekmai, BPO Yairipok, P.S. Nongpok Sekmai, District: Thoubal, 35. S. Nirvarani Devi, aged about 51 years, W/o L. Shambhu Singh, resident of Kwakeithel Laishram Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. & District: Imphal West, 36. Lucy N. Pauhoihching, aged about 42 years, W/o V. Gouthianmuan, resident of College Veng, New Lamka, P.O., P.S. & District: Churachandpur, 37. Kh. Joymati Devi, aged about 50 years, W/o Kh. Bhimo Singh, resident of Heirok Part II Bazar, P.O. Wangjing, P.S. Thoubal, District: Thoubal, 38. S. Donngaihvung, aged about 49 years, W/o K. Leivang, resident of Tangnuam Village, District: Churachandpur, Manipr. 39. Neouni Adaphro, aged about 41 years, W/o Dr. Athikho Losii, resident of Fiithu Colony, Tadubi, P.O. & P.S. Tadubi, District: Senapati, 40. M. Leimui, aged about 47 years, W/o Ks. Leirung, resident of Maring Kambong Khonou Village, P.O. & P.S. Tengnoupal, District: Chandel, 41. Martha Saka, aged about 42 years, D/o (L) Koshel Saka, Japhou Bazar, resident of Japhou Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Chandel, District: Chandel, 42. Themnu, aged about 40 years, W/o Albert Misao, resident of National Games Village, Zone III, A/40, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District: Imphal West, 43. K. Sana, aged about 52 years, W/o Losii, resident of Rabunamei, Near Rural Hospital Mao, Mao Gate, P.O. & P.S. Mao, District: Senapati,

5 P a g e N. Bimori Devi, aged about 49 years, W/o S. Milankumar Singh, resident of Thoubal Sabantongba Awang Leikai, P.O., P.S. & District: Thobual, 45. Thounaojam Susila Devi, aged about 41 years, W/o A. Tejamani Singh, resident of Sangaiprou Maning Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Lamphel, District: Imphal West, 46. Kh. Ibetombi Devi, aged about 48 years, W/o U. Baleshwor, resident of Uripok Kabrabam Leikai, RIMS Gate, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel, District: Imphal West, 47. W. Anjali Devi, aged about 53 years, W/o Kh. Inaobi Singh, resident of Kwakeithel Moirangpurel Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Kwakeithel, District: Imphal West, 48. B. Sanahanbi Devi, aged about 59 years, W/o B. Gourachandra Sharma, resident of Loklaobung Makha, P.O. Imphal, P.S. Singjamei, District: Imphal West, 49. G. Ahilya Devi, aged about 53 years, W/o S. Ibotombi Singh, resident of Bamon Kampu Awang Leikai, P.O. Irilbung, P.S. Singjamei, District: Imphal West, 50. H. Mitabani Devi, aged about 48 years, W/o Ng. Pamheiba Singh, resident of Chinga Mathak Yumnam Leikai, P.O. Imphal, P.S. District: Imphal West, 51. N. Ruparani Devi, aged about 51 years, W/o Kh. Manikanta Singh, resident of Kakwa Makha Nakmeirakpam Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei, District: Imphal West, 52. G. Suprabha Devi, aged about 58 years, W/o GA Chitaranjan Sharma, resident of Keishamthong Hodam Leirak, P.O. Imphal, P.S. & District: Imphal West, 53. Th. Saroda Devi, aged about 54 years, W/o W. Ranjit Singh, resident of Khongman Okram Chuthek, P.O. Singjamei, P.S. Irilbung, District: Imphal West, - Versus -... PETITIONERS

6 P a g e 6 1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/Secretary (Social Welfare), Government of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal. 2. The Commissioner/Secretary (Finance), Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal. 3. The Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Manipur, Imphal.... RESPONDENTS B E F O R E HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH For the Petitioners :: Shri A. Bimol, Advocate. For the Respondents :: Shri K. Jagat, Govt. Advocate. Date of Hearing & Reserving Judgment :: Date of Judgment & Order :: JUDGMENT AND ORDER [1] Heard A. Bimol, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri K. Jagat, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. [2] The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant financial up-gradation as provided under the ACP Scheme within a reasonable period. [3.1] According to the petitioners, they were initially appointed as Supervisors (ICDS) in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Manipur between to , by issuing various Government orders, on the recommendation of a Class III DPC and as per the Recruitment Rules called the Social Welfare Department, Government of Manipur Supervisor (ICDS) Recruitment Rules, 1995, the post of Supervisor is classified as Class III post.

7 P a g e 7 [3.2] The Government of Manipur issued an Office Memorandum dated introducing the Assure Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the ACP Scheme ) in order to mitigate the financial hardship arising out of the stagnation by providing financial up-gradation at least twice in the service career of the employees of the State of Manipur in Group-C and Group-D posts on completion of 12 (twelve) years and 24 (twenty four) years of regular service subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The State of Manipur made a rule called the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the ROP 2010) and a notification in respect thereof was issued on where under the revised scale of pay prescribed for Supervisor (ICDS) is Rs /- with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and Rs. 4300/- after 15 years and consequent upon the said revision of pay, the Government of Manipur issued an order dated for classification of all posts under the State Government on the basis of the pay or scale of pay prescribed in the ROP By the said order, it is provided that all posts carrying Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and Rs. 4300/- in the pay scale of Rs /- shall be classified as Group-B posts. Accordingly, the Administrative Department issued an order dated classifying the post of Supervisor (ICDS) as Group-B and conferring Gazetted status. [3.3] After the post of Supervisor (ICDS) being classified as Group-B, the State Government made a new rule called the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) (2 nd Amendment) Rules, 2011 under which the scale of pay for the post of Supervisor (ICDS) was revised from Rs /- to Rs ,200/- with the remark that the existing pay and the Grade Pay be personal to the incumbents till they cease to hold the posts. Thereafter, the Government of Manipur issued an O.M.

8 P a g e 8 dated clarifying that the downgraded Pay Band of Rs and Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- shall be applicable to the new recruits / promotes appointed to the post after and by the said O.M., it is further clarified that the post of Supervisor (ICDS) shall be classified as Group-C for all purposes. Being aggrieved by the classification made under the O.M. dated , the petitioners along with some others filed a writ petition before the Hon ble High Court which was allowed along with the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 57 of 2012 by a common judgment and order dated In compliance with the said judgment and order, the Government of Manipur issued an order dated ordering that the Supervisors who are in the Pay Band of Rs /- + GP 4200/- and 4300/-, as personal till they cease to hold the posts, shall continue to be classified as Group-B and the pay scale of the posts, on vacation, shall be pay band of Rs /- + GP 2800/- which shall be classified as Group-C. [3.4] Although the posts of Supervisor held by the petitioners have been classified as Group-B vide Government order dated , the fact remains that they were initially appointed as Group-C posts on the recommendation of a Class-III DPC and the O.M. dated provides that the financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme shall be given only to those who were initially appointed to the post belonging to Group-C and Group-D and not with reference to the existing posts held by them. It is further clarified therein that only those directly recruited to either Group-C or Group-D category but, later on, promoted to either Group-B or Group-A shall be entitled to benefits under the said Scheme. Therefore, the petitioners having rendered 12 (twelve) years of service without availing any promotion, are entitled to get their first initial up-gradation as provided under the

9 P a g e 9 ACP Scheme. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. [4] As usual, the State respondents have failed to file their affidavit-in-opposition, despite a number of opportunities being granted to them by this court and since they have chosen not to contest the writ petition, the averments made therein shall be deemed to have been admitted by them in terms of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Naseem Bano (Smt.) Vs. State of UP & ors Suppl. (4) SCC 46; State of Assam Vs. Union of India (2010) 10 SCC 403; Asha Vs. PT. B.D. Sharama University of Health Sciences & ors., (2012) 7 SCC 389 wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that an averment made in the petition is expected to be specifically denied by the replying party and if there is no specific denial, such averment is deemed to have been admitted by the respondent. [5] It has been submitted by Shri A. Bimol, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that although the petitioners have served more than 12 years as Supervisors (ICDS), the respondents have failed to grant financial up-gradation as provided under the ACP scheme; that several other employees of the State who are similarly situated with the petitioners, have already been granted financial up-gradation and that the denial of such benefits to the petitioners is unreasonable and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. His contention appears to have some considerable force for the reason that as per the appendix filed along with the petition, it is evident that the petitioners were appointed between and and have rendered more than 12 years fulfilling the requirements for grant of financial up-gradation as prescribed in the

10 P a g e 10 ACP scheme introduced vide Office Memorandum dated , para 2 of which is as under: 2. Now, it has been decided by the Government to introduce the Assured Career Progression Scheme for the employees of the State Government of Manipur with certain modifications to mitigate hardship in cases of acute stagnation neither in a cadre or in an isolated post. Keeping in view all relevant factors, it has been decided to grant two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme to employees in Group C and D only on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service respectively subject to conditions specified in Annexure I. Isolated posts in Group C and D categories which have no promotional avenues shall also qualify for similar benefits on the pattern indicated above Certain categories of employees, such as, Workcharged, casual employees (including those with temporary status), ad-hoc, contract employees and employees working in autonomous/statutory bodies shall not qualify for benefits under the aforesaid Scheme. Thereafter, as regards the entitlement of benefits under ACP scheme in respect of Group-B or A promotees, an Office Memorandum dated was issued stating that the financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme shall be given only to those who were initially appointed to the post belonging to Group-C and Group-D and not with reference to the existing posts held by them. It is further clarified therein that only those directly recruited to either Group-C or Group-D category but, later on, promoted to either Group-B or Group-A shall be entitled to benefits under the said Scheme.

11 P a g e 11 [6] It is no doubt true that as per the Recruitment Rules, the post of Supervisor (ICDS) is classified as Group-III (Group-C) but consequent upon the revision of pay scale under the ROP 2010, the post of Supervisor (ICDS) has been classified as Group-B vide order dated issued by the Commissioner (SW), Government of The ROP 2010 came to be amended vide Notification dated by which the Pay Band and Grade Pay in respect of certain posts were revised and consequently, Pay Band for the post of Supervisor (ICDS) was revised from Rs to Rs /- with the remark that the existing Pay Band shall be personal till the incumbent ceases to hold the post which necessitated the issuance of the O.M. dated by the Finance Department but it is clarified therein that the post of Supervisor (ICDS) shall be classified as Group-C for all purposes. This O.M. dated came to be challenged before the Hon ble High Court which quashed it and in compliance with its order dated , the order dated was issued by the State Government stating that the Supervisors who are in Pay Band of Rs /- shall continue to be classified as Group-B but those who are in Pay Band of Rs /- shall continue to be clarified as Group-C. The conjoint reading of the O.M. dated and the Government order dated makes it very clear that the petitioners are entitled to grant of financial up-gradation as provided in the ACP scheme and the denial thereof to the petitioners by the State Government is highly unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [7] For the reasons stated herein above, the instant writ petition is allowed with the direction that the respondents shall grant the petitioners a financial up-gradation as provided in the ACP scheme

12 P a g e 12 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Devananda

State Wise, District Wise & Centre Wise Location of Functional Creches Under BAJSS

Sl. No. Name of the Voluntary Organization & complete address along with Authorized Signatory contact No. & email id. State Wise, District Wise & Centre Wise Location of Functional Creches Under BAJSS