Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh Vs State of Manipur

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

456 paragraphs · 10,482 words

Mr. S. Serto, J.—Heard Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Athouba Khaidem, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 1 � 4 and Mr. KR. Pamei, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.

The case of the petitioner as gathered from the writ petition and as heard from the submission of the learned counsel representing him is that he was initially appointed as a lecturer in the Department of History of Thoubal College on 15.12.1964 when the college was still privately run and while continuing in service, the college was taken over by the Government of Manipur w.e.f. 16.12.1977 and was absorbed there as Vice Principal. Thereafter, he was appointed as Principal of the college w.e.f. 01.10.1986 on officiating basis at the scale of pay of Rs. 1600 - 2240/- p.m. with other allowances as admissible under rules vide Government order No. 3/3/86- S/SE, dated 22.12.1986. A copy of the said order as annexed at Annexure, A/1to the petition is reproduced as follows :

"Annexure � A/1

Government of Manipur

Secretariat : Education Department

Order by The Governor

Imphal, the 22nd December, 1986

No. 3/3/86-S/SE : The Governor of Manipur is pleased to appoint the following Vice Principals / Sr. Lecturers to officiate as Principals of the Government Colleges, Manipur as shown against each in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2240 /- pm and other allowances as admissible under the rules w.e.f. 1/10/86 (FN).

Shri Lalji Shukla, Sr. Lecturer, (Principal i/c) DMC of the Arts & Commerce

As Principal, DMC of Arts & Sr. Lecturer, Commerce vice Shri N.G. Sarmah retired

Shri Y. Mohendro Singh, Vice Principal, (Principal i/c) Thoubal College

As Principal, Thoubal College vice N. Shamu Singh retired

Shri Khanot Ruivah, Sr. Lecturer, (Principal i/c) Pettigrew College

As Principal, Pettigrew College vice Shri P.R. Yangkhahao, Principal Pettigrew College transferred to Kha-Manipur College

Shri D. Pudaite, Vice Principal (Principal i/c) Lamka College

As Principal, Lamka College vice Shri Vung D. Tombing on suspension

By orders and in the name of the Governor, etc.,

Sd/- (Tongkhohao Hangshing)

Commissioner�cum�Secretary (Education),

Government of Manipur

Memo No. 3/3/86-S/SE

Imphal, the 22nd December, 1986

Copy to :

The P.S. to the Hon�ble Chief Minister, Manipur.

The Accountant General, Manipur.

The Treasury Officer, Lamphel/Thoubal/Ukhrul/Churachandpur.

The Director of Education (U), Manipur.

The Principals concerned.

The Principals-in-charge concerned.

Order Book.

Guard File.

(Tongkhohao Hangshing)

Commissioner�cum�Secretary (Education),

Government of Manipur"

That, while continuing as Principal of the college on officiating basis vide order No. 1/1/78/S/SE-II, dated 03.07.1990, the Government of Manipur declared absorption of the petitioner�s service as Vice Principal of Thoubal College under order No. 1/15/77-SE, dated 16.12.1977 as the absorption under rule 5 of the Manipur Civil Service Rules, 1981 as per rule I(iii) of the said rules. By the same order, the petitioner by then serving as officiating Principal of Moirang College, Moirang was placed in the Selection Grade of Lecturer in the scale of pay of Rs. 37700 � 125 � 4950 � 150 � 5700/- p.m. A copy of the order annexed as Annexure, A/2 to the petition is reproduced as follows :

"Annexure, A/2

Government of Manipur

Secretariat : Education Department

Orders by The Governor

Imphal, the 3rd July, 1990

No. 1/1/78-S/SE.Pt. II : The Governor of Manipur is pleased to declare the absorption of Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh as Vice Principal of Thoubal College, Thoubal made under Government Order No. 1/15/77-SE dated 16/12/77 as the absorption under Rules 5 of the Manipur Civil Service Rules, 1981 as per Rule I(III) of the said rules.

Further, the Governor is pleased to order the placement of Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh (now serving as officiating Principal of Moirang College, Moirang) in the selection grade of Lecturer in the scale of pay of Rs. 37700-125-4950-150-5700/- p.m. with effect from 1.1.1986.

By orders and in the name of the Governor, etc.,

Sd/- (Naved Masood)

Secretary to the Government of Manipur

Memo No. : 1/1/78-S/SE.Pt.II

Imphal, the 3rd July, 1990

Copy to :

The Spl. Secy. to Governor, Manipur.

The Secy. to Chief Minister, Manipur.

The P.S. to Hon�ble E.M., Manipur.

The Vice-Chancellor, Manipur University, Chanchipur.

The Accountant General, Manipur.

The Joint Secy. (J.D. Guptal), Ministry of Human Resource Development, (Deptt. of Edn.), Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi.

The Commissioner (Finance), Manipur.

The Director of Education (U), Manipur.

The Treasury Officer concerned.

10.

The Principal, Government Colleges, Manipur.

11.

The Director, Ptg& Sty, Manipur for publication in the Gazette.

12.

Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh.

13.

Office copy.

(Aleng A.S. Shimray)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of Manipur"

That, in pursuance of the Finance Department, Government of Manipur Order No. 3/9/86-PC(Pt.), dated 03.10.1988 and on the recommendation of the joint committee of officials, the Department of Education, Government of Manipur issued an order being No. 1/1/78- S/SE(Pt.), dated 23.03.1990 for placement of Principles of Government Colleges in the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500 � 7300/- p.m. if they have completed 8 (eight) years of service as Principal or 28 (twenty eight) years of service as Lecturer irrespective of length of service as Principal or 5 (five) years of service as Principal and possessed Ph. D. Degree. A copy of the order as annexed as Annexure, A/3 to the writ petition is reproduced here below :

"Annexure, A/3

Government of Manipur

Secretariat : Education Department

Order by The Governor, Manipur

Imphal, the 28th March, 1990

No. 1/1/78-S/SE (Pt.) : In pursuance of Finance Department order No. 3/9/86-PIC (Pt.), dated 3rd October, 1988 and on the recommendation of the joint committee of officials, the Governor is pleased to order that the Higher Scale of Rs. 4,500 � 7,300/- sanctioned under the above orders be given to the Principals who fulfil any of the following criteria :

(a) Principals who have completed eight years service as Principal; or

(b) Principals who have completed 28 years of service as a college lecturer, irrespective of length of service as Principal; or

(c) Principal of college awarding Master�s Degrees, subject to the condition that separate Recruitment Rules are framed for the post of Principal for such post Graduate Colleges.

The Governor is further pleased to clarify that the benefit of three years or one year available to Ph.D./M.Phil. Degree Holders will also be available to the Principals for purpose of counting length of qualifying service for the above grade provided that such a benefit has not already been availed of by the Principal concerned as a Lecturer.

Screening of records of Principal for the above grade will continue to be through the normal D.P.C.

This issues in consultation with the Finance Department (PIC).

By orders, etc.

Sd/- Naved Masood

Secretary (Edn.), Government of Manipur

Memo No. 1/1/78-S/SE (Pt.)

Imphal, the 28th March, 1990

Copy to :

The Special Secy. to Governor of Manipur.

Secretary to Chief Minister, Manipur.

The P.S. to Hon�ble Education Minister, Manipur.

The Commissioner (Finance), Government of Manipur.

The Accountant General, Manipur.

The Director of Education(U), Manipur.

All Deputy Commissioners, Manipur.

All Treasury Officers, Manipur.

All Principals, Government Colleges in Manipur.

10.

Guard File/Order Book.

Sd/- Aleng A.S. Shimray

Under Secretary to the Government of Manipur"

That the petitioner completed 8 (eight) years of service as Principal of Thoubal College on 30.09.1994 as he was appointed as such w.e.f. 01.10.1986 vide Government Order dated 22.12.1986 at Annexure, A/1 (reproduced at Para No. 2 above), therefore, he is entitled to get the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500 � 7300/- p.m. as per the first criteria given at clause (a) of the above stated order. The petitioner further claimed that otherwise also he had completed 28 (twenty eight) years of service as Lecturer at Thoubal College on 14.12.1992 if his service would have been counted with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 15.12.1966, and also completed 5 (five) years of service as Principal with Ph.D. Degree on 17.12.1994, therefore, he is entitled to get the higher scale of pay under clause (b) of the given above said order any way.

The Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms by a notification No. 1/2/81-RR-DP, dated 22.06.1981 published a Recruitment Rule for the post of Principal in the Government Colleges called the Executive Department (Principal Government Colleges) Manipur Recruitment Rules, 1981. As per the said Recruitment Rules, the post of Principal in Government Colleges is GCS Class � I Gazetted post and method of recruitment is first by promotion failing which through Direct Recruitment and through Class � I D.P.C. The feeder post for the posts of Principal are Vice Principal and Lecturers with 5 (five) years regular service in the grade. The notification as given at Annexure, A/4 is reproduced here below :

"Annexure, A/4

Government of Manipur

Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms

(Personnel Division)

Notification

Imphal, dated 22nd June, 1981

No. 1/2/81-RR/DP : In supersession of all previous orders issued in this regard and in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Manipur hereby makes the following rules regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Principal of Government Colleges, Education Department, Manipur, as shown in the MPSC Form�8 , namely �

Short title : these rules may be called the Education Department (Principal, Government Colleges), Manipur Recruitment Rules, 1981.

Application : These rules shall apply to the posts specified in column 1 of the MPSC Form � 8 hereto annexed.

Classification, Scale of pay, Method of Recruitment etc. : Classification of the said post, scale of pay, method of recruitment and other matters connected therewith shall be as specified in the column 3 to 13 of the said MPSC Form � 8.

Disqualification :

(a) No person, who has more than one wife living or who having a spouse living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life time of such spouse, shall be eligible for appointment to the aforesaid posts, and

(b) No woman, whose marriage is void by reason of husband having a wife living at the time of such marriage or who has married a person who has a wife living at the time of such marriage, shall be eligible for appointment to the said posts.

Provided that the Governor of Manipur may, if satisfied that there are special grounds for so ordering, exempt any person from the operation of this rule.

"Power to relax � Where the Governor is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, and in consultation with the Manipur Public Service Commission, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons or posts."

These rules shall come into force with immediate effect. By order and in the name of the Governor

(M. Brajabidhu Singh)

Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur

No. 1/2/81-RR/DP

Imphal, the 22nd June, 1981

Copy to :

Director of Printing & Stationery, Manipur for publication in the State Gazette. 5 spare copies may please be sent.

Secretary, Manipur Public Service Commission, Imphal with 10 spare copies with reference to Commission�s Letter No. 5/34/80-RR/MPSC dated 20/8/1980.

Secretary (Education), Government of Manipur with 30 spare copies.

Director of Education, Manipur with 10 spare copies.

Under Secretary (PIC), Government of Manipur, Imphal.

Order Book/Guard File.

(M. Brajabidhu Singh)

Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur

Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal, Government Colleges of the Education Department, Manipur

File No. 1/8/81-RR/DP M.P.S.C. Form � 8

Dated 22/6/81

Designation of Post

No. of Posts

Classification

Scale of pay

Whether selection post or non selection post

Age for direct recruits

Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits

Whether age and educational qualification prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case of promotees

Principals, Government College

G.C.S. Class � I (Gazetted)

Rs. 1200 � 50 � 1300 � EB � 60- 1900

Selection

35 years and above

Essential :1. At least a first or second class (at least 50% marks at Master�s Degree Examination) with Honours or Distinction from a recognised University

10 years experience as a teacher in a College or University or as an educational administrator (Qualifications relaxable at the discretion of the Commission in the case of candidates otherwise well qualified)

Yes

Sd/-

(M.B. Singh)

Deputy Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur

Period of probation if any

Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/transfer & percentage of the vacancies to be filed by various to be filed by various methods

In case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer, grades from which promotion/deputation transfer to be made

If a D.P.C. exists is its composition

Circumstances in which MPSC is to be consulted in making recruitment

2 (two) years

By Promotion failing which by direct recruitment

Promotion : 1. Vice Principal & Senior Lecturer of the Government Colleges with 5 years� regular service in the grade. Note : 1. The promotes should fulfil the condition of qualifying service for promotion on the date on which the proposal is sent to the Commission provided that a person is considered for such appointment all persons who are senior to him on the grade shall also be considered irrespective of the fact whether or not they fulfil the recruitment as to the minimum period of qualifying service for purpose of promotion mentioned above.

Any period of adhoc appointment prior to appointment on regular basis in consultation with the commission shall not be counted toward the minimum period of service prescribed for promotion.

Class � I D.P.C.

As required under MPSC (Exemption of Consultation Regularisation, 1972)

Sd/-

(M. Brajabidhu Singh)

Deputy Secretary (DP) Government of Manipur"

That, the petitioner claims that since he had completed 5 (five) years of service as Vice Principal on 15.12.1982 (as his appointment as Vice Principal was made w.e.f. 16.12.1977), he had fulfilled the requirement of the Recruitment Rules for appointment to the post of Principal but the Government failed to regularise his service as Principal and thereby denied him the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500 � 7300/- p.m. without any fault of his own. Being aggrieved, he submitted a number of representations to the Government for doing the needful. Due to his relentless effort, a Screening Committee was constituted for regularisation of 3 (three) officiating Principals including himself and for their placement to higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500 � 7300 /- p.m. The committee held its meeting on 24.09.1994 for the purpose. So, the petitioner was hopeful that his matter along with that of 2 (two) others would be considered favourably and hence, waited for the same. However, the petitioner was never regularised in the post of Principal, and therefore, not granted the higher scale of pay, and in the meanwhile, he retired on superannuation on 29.02.1996 vide order No. 8/14/90-S/SE(I), dated 09.01.1996 issued the Education Department, Government of Manipur. The relevant order issued by the Government to that effect which is annexed as Annexure, A/5 to the writ petition is reproduced here below (Petitioner�s name appears at Sl. No. 7):

"Annexure, A/5

Government of Manipur

Secretariat : Education Department

Orders by The Governor

Imphal, the 9th January, 1996

No. 8/14/90-S/SE (I) : The Governor of Manipur is pleased to allow the following officers /Principals/lecturers of the Education Department (Hr. Edn.), Manipur to retire from service w.e.f. the date as shown against their names on their attaining the age of superannuation.

Sl. No.

Name of officers/principals/lecturers

Date of retirement

Mr. T.S. Gangte, Chairman, Council of Hr. Sec. Edn. (Now reverted as Principal, Churachandpur College)

31.1.1996 (AN)

Shri A. Brajakumar Singh Lect. (SG), DMC of Sc.

31.03.1996 (AN)

Dr. W. Ibohal Singh Lect (SG), GPW College

29.02.1996 (AN)

Shri H. Gokul Sharma Lect (SG), Moirang College

29.02.1996 (AN)

Shri M. Jugeshwar Singh Principal Churachadpur College

29.02.1996 (AN)

Anima Das, Lect (SG) Modern College

29.02.1996 (AN)

Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh Principal, Oriental College

29.02.1996 (AN)

Shri Naresh Mishra Lect (SG), DMC Arts & Com.

29.02.1996 (AN)

Smt. Kh. Rohini Devi Principal, Manipur College

29.02.1996 (AN)

10.

Dr. Th. Surjabarun Singh Addl. Director of Education (P)

31.03.1996 (AN)

11.

Shri I. Tomba Singh Lect (SG), Lilong Haoreibi College

31.03.1996 (AN)

12.

Shri Sitesh Chandra Das Principal, N.G. College

31.03.1996 (AN)

By orders and in the name of the Governor, etc.,

Sd/-

(P. Magha Singh)

Under Secretary (Edn.), Government of Manipur

Copy to :

The Accountant General, Manipur.

The Treasury Officers concerned.

The Director of Education (U), Manipur.

The Principals Concerned.

The Officers/Principals/Lecturers concerned.

Order Book."

That, in continuation of the steps taken by the Government for regularisation of the petitioner�s service as Principal and his placement in the higher scale of pay in pursuant to his effort, the Joint Secy. (Hr. Edn.), Government of Manipur in the Education Department, Manipur issued a communication dated 29.01.2008 to the Director of Hr. Education, Manipur, requiring the later to submit a proposal for regularisation of the officiating appointment of the petitioner. In response to the said communication, the Director of Hr. Education, Manipur sent the required proposal to the Secretary (Hr. Education), Manipur vide his communication No. 3/3-549/89- ED(Pt. I) dated 03.06.2008.While doing so, the Director also intimated the Secretary that such proposal was already submitted earlier on 24.02.1995 also. As a reminder another communication being No. 3/3-549/89-EDEDC( Pt. II) dated 02.02.2009 was also sent to the Secretary (Hr. Edn.), Government of Manipur by the Director of Higher Education, Government of Manipur. However, no result came forth. The copies of the communications mentioned above and which are annexed as Annexures, A/6 and A/7 are reproduced here below :

"Annexure, A/6

NO. 7(2)/7/2007 � S/HE

Government of Manipur

Secretariat : Higher Education Department

Imphal, dated the 29th January, 2008

The Director of Higher Education, Manipur

Subject : Regularization of the officiating appointment of Dr. Y. Mahendra Singh, Retd. Principal.

Sir,

I am directed to invite a reference to your letter No. 3/3-549/89-EDC(Pt.-I) dated 6th August, 2007 regarding the above subject and to request you to submit a proposal for regularization of the officiating appointment of Dr. Y. Mahendra Singh, Retired Principal, Oriental College, Imphal at an early date.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Bobby Waikhom)

Joint Secretary (Hr. Edn.), Govt. of Manipur"

"Annexure, A/7

Government of Manipur

Office of The Director (Univ. And Hr. Education)

Annexure-V

No.3/3-549/89-EDC(Pt.II)

Imphal, the 2nd Feb., 2009

To,

The Secretary (Hr. Edn.) Government of Manipur

Subject : Regularization of the officiating appointment of Dr. Y. Mohendro Singh, Retired Principal, Oriental College, Imphal.

Sir,

I am to send herewith a copy H.O. No. 7 (Health & FW/Lab. &Empl)/(CAD)/08 dated 6.1.2009 from the Hon�ble Minister, Health & FW Lab. &Empl. / (CAD), Manipur along with the application submitted by Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh, Retd. Principal, Oriental College, Imphal which is self explanatory for regularisation of his officiating appointment Principal. The proposal for regularisation of the officiating Principals of the following persons had already been submitted to the Admn. Department vide this Department letter No. 3/3-468/84-EDC(Pt.) dated 24.2.1995.

Cadre "A" : A. Raghumani Singh

Cadreless : Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh

Cadre "B" : E. Nabakumar Singh K. Herevai Dinabandhu T. Kunjakishore Singh

I am, therefore, to request you kindly to look into the matter for regularisation of the above officiating Principals of Government Colleges at an early date.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

(R.K. Chaoba Singh)

Addl. Director (Univ. and Hr. Edn.),

Govt. of Manipur

Copy to :

Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh, Yumnam Leikai, Lai Maning, Imphal � 795001"

That, since no result came out of the exercise carried out as mentioned above, the petitioner submitted a representation to the concerned Minister on 19.09.2009 and the Minister directed his ministerial staff to look into the matter as per rule. Besides, another representation dated 09.08.2010 was also submitted by the petitioner to the Commissioner, Higher Education for redressal of his grievance. But no response was forthcoming, therefore the petitioner having no choice submitted a representation dated 05.09.2011 to the Governor and in response to the same, Governor�s Secretariat issued a communication dated 06.09.2011 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur to take necessary and appropriate action for regularisation of the petitioner�s service as Principal and his placement in the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500 � 7300/- p.m. Since the said communication from the Governor�s office to the Chief Secretary did not yield any fruit or even response, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 17.09.2011 to the Commissioner Higher Education, Manipur requesting him to expedite his matter of regularisation as Principal. He also submitted a reminder dated 04.04.2012 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur requesting him to take steps as per the instruction issued by the office of the Governor dated 06.09.2011. But, all these efforts of the petitioner yielded no result. Copies of the representation dated 09.09.2009, 09.08.2010, 05.09.2011, 06.09.2011, 17.09.2011, 04.04.2012 and 16.04.2012 which are annexed to the petition as Annexures, A/8, A/9, A/10, A/11, A/12 & A/13 are reproduced here below :

"Annexure, A/8

The Hon�ble Education Minister, Manipur

Subject : Placement in the selection Grade Pay of Principal.

Sir,

I am to state that I was appointed as officiating Principal of the Thoubal College with effect from 1.10.1986 vide Govt. order No. 3/3/86-S/SE, dated 22nd December, 1986. A photostat copy of the order is enclosed herewith for your kind reference. In this connection it is stated that the meeting of Screening Committee of the Government for placement of Principals in the selection grade scale of pay held on 24.9.1994 decided the cases of the three officiating Principals including my case as follows : "The placement of Principals, who are now on officiating basis though they have fulfilled the criteria for placement to S.G. pay i.e. 4500 � 7300 may be done after regularisation of their appointment". I was, however, retired on superannuation on 29.2.1996 without regularisation. The non-regularisation of officiating appointment during my service life had resulted in depriving me of the financial benefits due to me for officiating the post of Principal.

In this context, I may be allowed to mention the Hon�ble Supreme Court judgment as reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2909. In para 6, it is stated that "If a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibilities, he is normally entitled to the salary of that post". Again in para 8 of the same judgment it is stated that "If a person is promoted to the higher post or to officiate on that post or as in the instant case a stop gap management is made to place him on the higher post, he would not claim higher salary or other attendant benefits would be contrary to law and also against public policy". A photostat copy of the Hon�ble Supreme Court judgment as referred to above is enclosed herewith for your kind reference.

As the Screening Committee had confined my eligibility to the Selection Grade pay of scale for the Principals as mentioned above, I request the Hon�ble Minister to take action to enable him to enjoy the higher scale of pay for the Principal from the due date so that justice is done.

For this act of your kindness, I shall ever remain grateful to you.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh)

Retd. Principal

Oriental College

Home Address :Yumnam Leikai

Lai Manining, Imphal"

"Annexure, A/9

To,

The Commissioner (Hr. Education) Manipur

Subject : Placement in the higher scale of pay of Principal.

Sir,

I am to invite a reference to my application dated 22nd September, 2009 addressed to the Hon�ble Education Minister who had kindly directed you to act as per rules and to say that as per judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme Court as reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2909, my case for placement in the higher scale is very simple one that there is no room for any confusion in line of the judgment. In this connection, I may be allowed to reproduce below the relevant portion from the judgment.

Para � 6 :

"IF A PERSON IS PUT TO OFFICIATE ON A HIGHER POST WITH GREATER REPONSIBILITIES, HE IS NORMALLY ENTITLED TO THE SALARY OR OTHER ATTENDANT BENEFITS OF THAT POST".

AGAIN IN PARA - 8 OF THE SAME JUDGMENT IT IS STATED THAT "IF A PERSON IS PROMOTED TO THE HIGHER POST OR TO OFFICIATE ON THAT POST OR AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, A STOP GAP MANAGEMENT IS MADE TO PLACE HIM ON THE HIGHER POST, HE WOULD NOT CLAIM HIGHER SALARY OR OTHER ATTENDANT BENEFITS WOULD BE CONTRARY TO LAW AND ALSO AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY".

I may be allowed to say that the judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme Court is thus unequivocal and emphatic for giving salary of the post to the officiating appointee.

That, I fulfilled all the criteria laid down by the Finance Department, Government of Manipur for placement in the scale of pay of Rs. 45,000/- 73000/-

Lastly, the judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme Court referred to above did not say that the placement is to be preceded by the regularization of the officiating appointment.

In view of the clear directive of the Hon�ble Supreme Court, I request you kindly to take action for my placement in the scale of pay of Rs. 45,000 � 73,000/- from the due date.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh)

Retd. Principal, Oriental College, Imphal

Copy to :

P.S. to Hon�ble Education Minister, Manipur for information of the Minister.

The Additional Secretary (Hr. Education), Manipur."

"Annexure, A/10

Shri Gurbachan Jagat, His Excellency, Governor of Manipur Imphal

Subject : Humber request for intervention in my simple case for payment of higher scale of pay for the Principal.

Sir,

I beg most respectfully to submit the following facts for your kind consideration and necessary action.

That, consequent on the voluntary retirement of the Principal of the Thoubal College, I being the Vice-Principal, was appointed officiating Principal with effect from 1.10.1986 vide Government Order No. 3/3/86-S/SE dated 22.12.1986. A Xeroxed copy is enclosed herewith as appendix-I for your kind easy reference. I was retired on superannuation as officiating Principal with effect from 28.2.1996.

That, in course of time, I came to know that the Screening Committee duly constituted by the Government in its meeting held on 24.9.1994 had recommended my case for payment of higher scale of pay of the Principal after regularisation of the officiating appointment. The regularisation was, however, not done during the time of my service.

That, in this connection, I may kindly be allowed to state that the Central Civil Service (Temporary Services) Rules, 1978 had not been applied to my case when it came up before the Screening Committee. Rule 2(d) of the said Rules defines officiating appointment as temporary service. It is the normal practise that all government appointments are made on temporary basis at the first instance. Subsequently, the temporary service is made quasi-permanent and permanent service under Rules 3 and 8 of the said CCs (TS) Rules, 1978. Non-application of the CCS (TS ) Rules, 1978 to my case resulted in pecuniary loss to me. It also had deprived me of the chance of promotion to the higher post. The pension is calculated on the basis of the last pay drawn. As my pension was calculated on the basis of lower scale, my financial loss still exists. It may not be out of place to state that I had rendered successful service as Principal and in recognition of my service in various Govt. Colleges such as Thoubal College, Moirang College, C.I. College and Oriental College, the Manipur University nominated me as a member on the Executive committee and subsequently appointed me the Director, College Development Council of the University, on retirement from the Oriental College, Imphal.

That, I submitted an application on 22.9.2009 to the Hon�ble Education Minister who kindly directed the Commissioner Higher Education to "act as per rules." I had also submitted an application to the Chief Secretary on 28.2.2001 requesting him for necessary action.

That, in my applications submitted so far I requested the Govt. to dispose of my case in line with the judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in the case Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 2909 which held that "if a person is promoted to the higher post or put to officiate on that post, as in the instant case, a stop gap arrangement is made to place him on the higher post, he would not claim higher salary or other attendant benefits would be contrary to law and against public policy" (Para 8). A xeroxed copy is enclosed herewith as appendix II for your kind perusal.

Since my case has been lying pending for a pretty long time, I humbly request your Excellency to advice the concerned administrative department to dispose of my case in line with the judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme Court so that I may be able to get the ends of justice.

Imphal, the 5th September, 2011

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh)

Retd. Principal, Oriental College,

Home Address :Yumnam Leikai

Lai Maning, Imphal

Copy to :

PS to the Chief Secretary, Manipur

PA to the Commissioner (Hr. Education)."

"Annexure, A/11

Governor�s Secretariat

Raj Bhavan : Imphal

No. GSM/GEN-8/2008 (Pt. II)

Imphal, the 6th September, 2011

The Chief Secretary Government of Manipur Imphal.

Subject : Representation regarding payment of Higher Scale of pay of the Principal.

Sir,

I am directed to enclose herewith a copy of representation dated 05.09.2011 submitted to His Excellency, the Governor of Manipur by Dr. Y. Mohedra Singh, Retd. Principal, Oriental College, Yumnam Leikai Lai Maning, Imphal on the above subject and to request you kindly to take necessary action on the matter as desired by His Excellency, the Governor of Manipur.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Dr. R.K. Nimai Singh)

Secretary to the Governor of Manipur

Enclosed : 5 Sheets."

"Annexure, A/12

The Commissioner (Higher Edn) Manipur

Ref. : Letter No. GSM/GEN-8/2008 (Pt. II) dated 6th September, 2011 of the Secretary to the Governor of Manipur.

Sir,

I am to state that my representation dated 05.09.2011 was sent by the Secretary to the Governor of Manipur to the Chief Secretary Manipur for taking appropriate action as desired by His Excellency, Governor of Manipur. The Chief Secretary Manipur has sent the letter to the Commissioner Finance under his office No. 219 dated 09.09.2011. The Commissioner Finance sent the letter to the Assistant Secretary/Finance (PIC).

In this connection it is stated that the main file is in the Section Office of the Higher Education and in the absence of the file, the PIC Section is unable to take action.

It is, therefore, requested to direct the Assistant Secretary/Finance (PIC) to redirect the letter under reference to the Section of the Higher Education to facilitate taking appropriate action as desired by His Excellency the Governor of Manipur.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Dr.Y. Mohendra Singh)

Retd. Principal,

Oriental College, Imphal

Copy to :

The Secretary to the Governor of Manipur.

The Additional Secretary / Finance (PIC), Manipur."

"Annexure, A/13

The Chief Secretary Government of Manipur Imphal

Subject: Fixation of pay.

Sir,

I am to enclose herewith a Photostat copy of letter No. GSM/GEN-8/2008(Pt.II) dated 6th September, 2011 of the Secretary to the Governor of Manipur addressed to you and to state that 6th months have passed since the issue of the letter the case has not been disposed of though the case is very simple in view of the Hon�ble Supreme Court judgment mentioned in my representation.

I am to request you to kindly intervene personally and direct the department concerned to dispose of the case as indicated in the above letter of the Secretary to the Governor to take "appropriate action" so that I may be able to get the ends of justice.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh)

Retd. Principal

Oriental College & former

Director, CDC, Manipur University

Yumnam Leikai Lai Maning, Imphal

Copy to :

The Secretary to His Excellency, The Governor of Manipur.

Commissioner, Finance, Government of Manipur.

Commissioner, (Higher Education), Government of Manipur."

10.

That, the petitioner having no choice, after all the efforts he had made, filed a writ petition before the Hon�ble Gauhati High Court praying for appropriate relief/writ/direction and his writ petition was registered as W.P.(C) No. 220 of 2013 and the same was disposed of by an order passed on 05.07.2013 with a direction issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner which will be submitted by a fresh representation with all the relevant documents. The petitioner was also granted liberty to approach the High Court in case he is aggrieved by the decision of the Government. In pursuance of the direction, the petitioner submitted a representation along with certified copy of the judgment to the concerned authorities. The representation, however, was rejected by the Higher Education Department, Government of Manipur by an order dated 24.10.2013 on flimsy and irrelevant ground. A copy of the order which is annexed as Annexure, A/14 to the writ petition is reproduced as follows :

"Annexure, A/14

Government of Manipur

Secretariat : Higher Education Department

Orders

Imphal, the 24th October, 2013

No. 11/12/2013-HE/Case : Whereas Shri Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh, the then Vice Principal at Thoubal College was appointed as Principal of the said college on officiating basis vide Government order No. 3/3/86-S/HE, dated 22nd December 1986 with retrospective effect from 01.10.1986 (F/N).

And, Whereas, Shri Y. Mohendra Singh was absorbed as Vice Principal of Thoubal College and also given his placement in the selection grade of lecturer in scale of pay of Rs. 3700-125-150-5700 P.M. with effect from 01.01.1986 vide Govt. Department of Education order No. 1/1/78-S/SE(Pt.II), dated 3rd July, 1990.

And, Whereas, a Screening Committee meeting consisting of (i) Secretary (Edn.) and the representative of (ii) Department of Personnel (iii) Finance Department and (iv) Director (University & Higher Education) for consideration of placement of the Principals (regular/officiating) in the selection grade of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/- was held on 24.09.1994 and the Committee decided that the placement of those officiating College Principals (including Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh) would be done after regularisation of their appointments as Principals of Government Colleges.

And, Whereas, while the process of regularisation of the officiating Principals including Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh, was in progress during the year 1995, Shri Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh, then officiating Principal had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 19.02.1996 (A/N) and he was allowed to retire accordingly vide Government order No. /14/90-S/SE(I), dated 9th January, 1996.

And, Whereas, Shri Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh after a long gap of 10 (ten) years of retirement on superannuation on 29.02.1996 as officiating Principal, had submitted his first representation, dated 6th June, 2007 to the then Hon�ble Minister (Edn.) praying for his retrospective placement in the Higher Grade scale of pay i.e. Rs. 4500- Rs. 7300 which was observed and treated to be contrary to the resolution/decision of the Screening Committee meeting held on 24.09.1994 wherein the placement of the officiating Principals would be made subject to their regularisation as Govt. College Principals.

And, Whereas, Department of Higher Education after in depth and careful examination into his representation dated 6th June, 2007 had sought the views/observations of Department of Personnel and Finance Department (PIC) whether retrospective placement (after retirement) in higher scale could be considered under rules.

And, Whereas, the Department of Personnel and the Department of Finance (PIC) did not recommend the retrospective regularisation of Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh, the then officiating Principal after a gap of 10 (ten) years of his retirement from service on superannuation and its consequent retrospective placement in the higher Selection Grade Scale of Pay of Rs. 4500 � 7300/-.

And, Whereas, the Hon�ble High Court of Manipur in Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 220/2013 (Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh, Petitioner �v-The State of Manipur & Ors.) has passed an order dated 05.07.2013 directing the petitioner Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh to submit a fresh representation to the authorities concerned (Respondent No. 1) along with all the relevant orders within a period of 2(two) weeks in support of his claim on one hand and on the other hand the respondent No. 1 would examine the claim of the petitioner for payment in higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500 � 7300/- and also directing the Administrative Department of the Government (Higher Education) the respondent No. 1 to pass a speaking order disposing the claim of the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months.

And, Whereas, the writ petitioner, Shri Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh as per Hon�ble High Court under reference has submitted a Fresh Representation dated 1st August, 2013 along with the following documents (i) Copy of earlier representation dated 05.09.2011 to the Governor of Manipur, (ii) Copy of the Government order dated 03.07.1990 absorbing him (writ petitioner) as the Vice- Principal of Government College & (iii) Copy of the Government order dated 22.12.1986 appointing Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh as Principal on officiating basis.

10.

And, Whereas, the Administrative Department of Higher Education in compliance with the Hon�ble Gauhati High Court order dated 05.07.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 220/2013 has made careful and in depth re-examination into the fresh representation dated 1st August, 2013 of Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh and observed that the retrospective placement of Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh, the retired officiating Principal into the Higher Grade Scale of pay of Rs. 4500 � 7300/- p.m. could not be considered under rules after long years of his retirement on superannuation.

11.

Hence, the fresh representation dated the 1st August, 2013 submitted by Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh has been considered carefully and rejected on the ground given above.

By order & in the name of the Governor

Sd/-

(P. Vaiphei)

Commissioner (Higher & Tech. Education) Government of Manipur

Copy to :

The Hon�ble Minister (Education),Manipur.

The Registrar, High Court of Manipur, Imphal.

The Director (University & Higher Education),Manipur.

Shri Dr.Y. Mohendra Singh (Retd.) Principal, Oriental College, Imphal (H/Add: Yumnal Leikai Lai Maning, Imphal West).

Guard File."

11.

Being aggrieved by the said order of the Higher Education Department, Government of Manipur, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and /or any other writ /order/direction as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the nature of the case.

Against this, out of 5 (five) respondents only 2 (two) of them i.e. respondent No. 1 and 5 filed their counter affidavits.

First, the brief contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 is as follows :

That, the petitioner was appointed as Principal of Thoubal College only on officiating basis against the vacancy caused by voluntary retirement of the then incumbent, therefore the Screening Committee which held its meeting on 24.09.1994 after examining the case of the petitioner for placement of the Selection Grade Scale of Pay i.e. Rs. 4500 � 7300/- pm. deferred the matter till regularisation of his appointment as Principal but since the petitioner has retired before regularisation of his service, he is not entitled to placement in the higher scale of pay as claimed by him.

Secondly, it is submitted that since the petitioner submitted his representation to the concerned Minister only on 19.09.2009 i.e. after almost 13 (thirteen) years of his retirement on superannuation on 29.02.1996, the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches.

Thirdly, it is submitted that the petitioner approached the High Court by filing a writ petition of similar nature being W.P.(C) No. 220 of 2013 and the Hon�ble High Court was pleased to dispose of the same petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the authority concerned along with the relevant order(s) within 2 (two) weeks in support of his claim and thereafter, the respondent authority to examine the claim of the petitioner and disposed of the same with speaking order within a period of 3 (three) months. Accordingly, the writ petitioner submitted his representation on 01.08.2013 and the Administrative Department of Higher Education in compliance with the Hon�ble High Court�s order made a careful and in depth re-examination of the fresh representation of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be granted such higher pay under rules after long years of his retirement on superannuation and therefore, rejected the same by an order dated 24.11.2013, the petitioner�s claim in this case, hence, cannot be entertained any more.

12.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5, it is stated that the Administrative Department of Higher Education, Government of Manipur is the competent authority for placement/appointment/promotion of the petitioner to higher scale of pay and the respondent No. 5 cannot do-anything without authorisation of the Administrative Department,therefore, is not responsible for placement of the petitioner to the higher scale of pay.

13.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it was the duty of the respondents to regularise the petitioner�s service in the post of Principal before retirement since he was eligible and qualified for the post and to upgrade his pay to higher scale to which he would have been entitled to. Therefore the respondents cannot now turn around and say that because of the delay, the petitioner cannot be granted what he deserves and is entitled to. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited the judgment of the Hon�ble Gauhati High Court passed in W.A. No. 49 of 2008 by a Division Bench in which the judgment of the Apex Court in "Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others (2003)2 SCC 111" was cited in support of their decision that :

"In the instant case also the borrowing department, i.e. Controller of Technical Education had sought for no objection to the appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner to the post of office Superintendent on ad hoc/officiating basis from the lending department, i.e. Directorate of Education (S), who had given no objection under the said letter and allowed the petitioner to serve as office Superintendent on ad hoc/officiating basis on a considerable length of time, i.e. 14 years 9 months and in such circumstances, both the lending and the borrowing departments cannot turn around and contend that the service of the petitioner, even to the lower post of Accountant in the office of the Controller of Technical Education, was not absorbed. The Apex Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others (2003)2 SCC 111 held that what is given by one hand should not be taken away by the other for regularization of the ad hoc/officiating appointment both in direct recruit as well as in promotion under the said Memorandum dated 9.10.92 and the said notification dated 9.10.92 and therefore the appellant/writ petitioner shall not suffer because of the administrative lapses of the State respondents.

For the reasons discussed above, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 22.2.2008 passed in W.P. (C) No. 476 of 2002 and the State respondents are directed to treat the service of the appellant/writ petitioner as office Superintendent in the office of the Controller of Technical Education Manipur, i.e. the borrowing department absorbed w.e.f. 01.03.1985 by extending and paying all the consequential benefits accruing to him including the enhanced pay and the enhanced pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.03.1985. Further, it is made clear that the State respondents shall complete the whole exercise for compliance with these directions within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and order."

The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon�ble Gauhati High Court in the W.P.(C) No. 220 of 2013 directed the respondents to consider the representation on merit. But the respondents ignoring the merit of the claim of the petitioner decided on irrelevant ground of delay and laches as may be seen in Para No. 10 of the order No. 1/12/2013-HE/Case, dated 24.10.2013. The learned counsel drew my attention to the last sentence of Para No. 10 which reads as follows :

"Cannot be considered under rules after long years of his retirement on superannuation".

Copy of the order as annexed as Annexure, A/14 is given at Para No. 10 and Page No. 16 of the judgment.

Finally, the learned counsel quoted the maxim "Nulus Commodum Capere Protect De Injuria Sua Propria" i.e. no one can take advantage of his own wrong and submitted that the respondents in this case also should not be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong.

14.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 � 4 reiterated what is stated in the counter affidavit and submitted that since the petitioner was not regularised to the post of Principal, he cannot be granted the higher pay as claimed by him as the same can be enjoyed by only those who have served as Principals. The learned counsel also submitted that since the petitioner approached the authorities for redressal of his grievance after a lapse of long period of time, his prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted. The learned counsel cited the judgment of this Court passed on 03.07.2013 in W.A. No. 4 of 2009 reported in Gauhati Law Times : 2014 (3) GLT (MN) 221. The learned counsel particularly drew my attention to Para No. 13-16 of the judgment. In that case, the Division Bench overruled decision of the Single Bench and ordered as follows :

"13. In the present case, as would be clear from mere reading of the order dated 2.2.95, quoted supra the writ petitioner was holding the substantive cadre post of "Accounts Officer" when by an administrative order on 2.2.95, he was asked only for some time to look after the work of "Chief Accounts Officer.". This may at best entitled him to claim extra salary for the additional duties which he discharged for the post of "Chief Accounts Officer" but it certainly did not entitle him to claim the status of the "Chief Accounts Officer" for claiming the pensionary benefits treating him to have retired from the substantive post of Chief Accounts Officer. The benefit of earlier orders passed by the writ court/appellate court was confined upto claiming of the extra salary of "Chief Accounts Officer" but not the substantive status of "Chief Accounts Officer".

14.

We therefore cannot concur with the reasoning of the writ court when the learned Single Judge directed the State to fix the pension of the writ petitioner on the basis of the pay scale of the "Chief Accounts Officer". In our considered opinion, it is not legally sustainable in the light of what we have held above.

15.

In our opinion therefore, the writ petitioner was entitled to get all the pensionary benefits and fixation of his pension as if he retired from the post of "Accounts officer" and hence the pay scale of Accounts Officer which was in force at the time of retirement that should have been made basis for fixation of his pension and for payment of all pensionary benefits.

16.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. As a consequence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed."

15.

From the facts and circumstance of the case, the documents submitted by the parties and submissions of their respective learned counsels, 3 (three) issues on which fate of the case depends upon needs to be considered. The issues are as follows :

(i) Whether the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Principal of college on regular basis during his service period and if so, since when. And if the petitioner was promoted whether that would have entitled him to the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500 � 7300/-p.m. and if entitled since when.

(ii) Whether non promotion/non regularisation of the petitioner to the post of Principal during his service period and his non-placement to higher scale of pay was due to any fault of his or due to administrative lapse(s) on the part of the respondents.

(iii) Whether there has been delay and laches in the case of the petitioner, if so, who is responsible for the same.

16.

The issues are being taken up one after the other as follows :

According to Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal of Government College as already givenat Para No. 6(Annexure, A/1 to the petition) of this judgment which is undisputed, the feeder posts to the post of Principal are Vice Principal and Senior Lecturer of Government College with 5(five) years regular service in the grade. The petitioner�s service was absorbed as Vice Principal of Thoubal College vide Government Order No. 1/15/77-SE, dated 16.12.1977.This is an undisputed fact. Further, it is also undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Principal of Thoubal College on officiating basis w.e.f. 01.10.1986 vice Shri N. Samu Singh who took voluntary retirement vide Government order No. 3/3/86- S/SE dated 22.12.1986 (at Annexure, A/1 of the petition)given at Para No. 2 of this judgment. From the above stated facts and the Recruitment Rules, it is clear that the petitioner was Vice Principal at the time he was appointed to the post of Principal on officiating basis, therefore he was eligible for appointment to the post of Principal on regular basis since then.

17.

According to order No. 1/1/78-S/SE (Pt.), dated 28.03.1990 issued by Education Department, Government of Manipur, already given at Para No. 4 of this Judgment, only 3 (three) categories of Principals of Colleges are eligible for placement in the higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500 � 7300/- p.m. They are those : �

(a) Principals who have completed eight years service as Principal; or

(b) Principals who have completed 28 years of service as a College Lecturer, irrespective of length of service as Principal; or

(c) Principal of college awarding Master�s Degrees, subject to the condition that separate Recruitment Rules are framed for the post of Principal for such post Graduate Colleges.

Going by the Recruitment Rules and the order stated above, particularly eligibility criteria given at clause (a), the petitioner should have been appointed as Principal on regular basis as he was already eligible from the date he was appointed on officiating basis i.e. w.e.f. 01.10.1986 (vide Government order No. 3/3/86-S/SE, dated 22.12.1986) in that event he would have completed 8 (eight) years of service on 30.09.1994 as Principal, therefore, would have fulfilled the eligibility criteria of 8 (eight) years of service as Principal for entitlement to higher scale of pay of Rs. 4500 � 7300/- p.m. from that day onwards. This did not happen due to lapses, inaction or negligence on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel representing the respondents that since the petitioner was not regularised as Principal and retired as Vice Principal, he cannot be entitled or eligible for consideration for placement to higher scale of pay i.e. Rs. 4500 � 7300/- p.m. appears to be a misplaced one. In that view, the judgment cited by him i.e. of W.A. No. 4 of 2009 reported in Gauhati Law Times : 2014 (3) GLT (MN) 221has no relevancy in this case.

As stated above, the petitioner�s claim is that when the respondents did not promote him to the post of Principal on regular basis or did not regularise him to the post of the Principal (as he had been already appointed on officiating basis), he submitted a number of representations to the Government for doing the needful, and in pursuance of his representations, a Screening Committee was formed and the Committee held its meeting on 24.09.1994 for the purpose of considering his placement to higher scale. But, the Committee decided to upgrade his pay after regularisation of his service to the post of Principal. The fact of this claim of the petitioner is confirmed by the order dated 24.10.2013 being No. 11/12/2013-HE/Case of the Higher Education Department, Government of Manipur copy of which is annexed as Annexure, A/14 to the petition and is given at Para No. 10 of this judgment. Para No. 3 of the said order, is the relevant portion.

"3. And, Whereas, a Screening Committee meeting consisting of (i) Secretary (Edn.) and the representative of (ii) Department of Personnel (iii) Finance Department and (iv) Director (University & Higher Education) for consideration of placement of the Principals (regular/officiating) in the selection grade of pay of Rs. 4500-7300/- was held on 24.09.1994 and the Committee decided that the placement of those officiating College Principals (including Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh) would be done after regularisation of their appointments as Principals of Government Colleges."

18.

From the claim of the petitioner as stated above, which is undisputed, and the actions of the concerned authorities that followed one can conclude that the petitioner was not sleeping over his right but was actively pursuing with the concerned authorities for regularisation of his service as Principal and for up gradation of his pay to higher pay scale. Further, from the above quoted contents of Para No. 3 of the order dated 24.10.2013 of the Higher Education Department, Government of Manipur, one can clearly see that the concerned authorities were alive on the issue but only failed to take the same to its natural conclusion during the service period of the petitioner. Further, the meeting of the Screening Committee as stated above took place on 24.09.1994 and the petitioner retired on superannuation on 29.02.1996. There is a gap of about 1 (one) year and 5 (five) months between the date when the Committee held its meeting and decided as stated above and the date on which the petitioner retired. Therefore, there was sufficient time to take appropriate action for considering promotion or regularisation of the petitioner to the post of Principal which he had officiated for almost 10 (ten) years. In view of these stated facts and circumstances, it would be wrong and unfair to conclude that non-regularisation of the petitioner�s service to the post of Principal and non up-gradation of his pay to higher scale as a consequence thereof was due to the fault or lack of initiative on the part of the petitioner. Rather, it is manifested by these facts and circumstances that it is due to the administrative lapse(s) or negligence, lack of concern, lack of consistency and indifferent attitude on the part of the respondents/concerned authorities in the performance of their duties that service of the petitioner in the post of Principal, though deserving was not regularised during his service period.

19.

In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, I am constraint to put on record that since the petitioner was not remove from the post of Principal during his service period of almost 10 (ten) years, one can only conclude that he was competent and serving efficiently to the satisfaction of the authorities and all concerned. If it were not so, he would not have been allowed to continue in the post since the post of Principal is pivotal in the running of a College which is very important educational institution. However, to allow him to continue and utilise his service, that too, for a period of almost 10 (ten) years but without giving him the benefit of his labour cannot be justified. For that matter, anybody would have been surprised to know that our institutions were or are being run in that manner. If we continue to run our institutions in that fashion or manner it will not be long before all these institutions either perish or exist only for name sake.

(iii) Whether there has been delay and laches in the case of the petitioner, if so, who is responsible for the same.

It would be seen from the letter of the Joint Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Manipur dated 29.01.2008 given at Para 8 of this judgement (at Annexure, A/6 of the petition) calling for a proposal for regularisation of the appointment of the petitioner as Principal from the Director of Higher Education and from the reply of the Director�s office dated 02.02.2009 which is also given at Para 8 of this judgement(at Annexure, A/7 of the petition) that the respondents did take action for regularisation of the petitioner�s service to the post of Principal now and then, but due to the lapses on their part did not take the matter to its natural conclusion.

20.

It may also be pointed out that the petitioner, as stated above, submitted so many representations to concerned authorities. One representation dated 19.09.2009 to the Education Minister; a representation dated 09.08.2010 to the Commissioner Education, Manipur; a representation dated 05.09.2011 to the Governor of Manipur; a representation dated 06.09.2011 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur; another representation dated 17.09.2011 to the Commissioner (Higher Education), Manipur and another representation dated 04.04.2012 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur requesting them to regularise his officiating appointment as Principal and to up-grade his pay to higher scale of pay(all these are given at Para No. 9 and from Page 11 to 16 of this judgement and annexed as Annexure, A/8, A/9, A/10, A/11, A/12, A/13 to the writ petition). All these shows that the petitioner constantly requested for regularisation of his service as Principal and payment of his pay at higher scale. Therefore, it is not due to any fault or lapse(s) on the part of the petitioner but due to the lapse(s) on the part of the respondents that the petitioner�s service was not regularised as Principal of Government College during his service period and thereafter, which resulted to non-up gradation of his pay-to higher scale of pay.

21.

Further, before and after his retirement, it could be seen that the petitioner knocked all the possible doors and also run from pillar to post and post to pillar for redresser of his grievance(s). In fact, it was due to his relentless efforts that the respondents even took some actions as stated above, though short of arriving at the natural conclusion. He even filed a case in the Gauhati High Court for the same cause which was registered as WP(C) No.220 of 2013 and disposed on 05.07.2013. In view of the facts and circumstances stated, the petitioner cannot be blamed or faulted for delay and laches. In fact, there is no delay and laches in the petitioner�s case because there has been continuous cause of action as may be seen from the chain of facts and circumstances stated above.

22.

When the Hon�ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 220 of 2013 by its order dated 05.07.2013 directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the authority concerned, the expectation was that the authorities would decide on the regularisation of the petitioner�s service as Principal as per the relevant rules like the Recruitment Rules to the post of Principal and the eligibility of the petitioner to the higher scale of pay as per the eligibility criteria given in the order dated 28.03.1990 being No. 1/1/78- S/SE(Pt.) issued by the Education Department (annexed as Annexure, A/3 to the petition and given at Para No. 3 of this judgment). But, the petitioner was denied what is due to him on flimsy and irrelevant ground, such as,so much time has passed after superannuation of the petitioner. It appears from the order dated 24.10.2013 of the Commissioner (Higher & Tech. Education), Government of Manipur that the authorities have not considered the contribution of the petitioner to the society during the long period of his service specially the service rendered by him during the period of almost 10 (ten) years of his service when he was serving as Principal on officiating basis. The petitioner while working as Principal on officiating basis must have carried out all the duties of a Principal though he was not given the pay and allowances of the Principal. In such situation or circumstances the Government would have done better if they had given the petitioner what was due to him at the right time as that would have motivated him and encouraged him to perform his duty even better. But, in the contrary, what one can see is total denial of his entitlement that too on flimsy and irrelevant ground as already stated above. This kind of attitude shown to a Government servant cannot be encouraged. Because, it is not only against the established rules and norms but against the basic principle of fairness and equity and also against the interest of the very institution.

23.

Before I part with this judgment, I record my agreement with the legal maxim quoted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no one can take advantage of his own wrong. Therefore, the respondents in this case cannot be allowed to take advantage of their lapses, negligence, inaction or illegal action and indifferent attitude towards the just cause of the petitioner.

24.

In view of the above conclusions drawn, I have no choice but dispose the case with the direction that the respondents should take necessary steps for regularisation of the petitioner to the post of Principal with retrospective effect i.e. from the date he was eligible to the post and to up-grade his pay to higher scale of pay i.e. Rs. 4500 � 7300/- p.m. from the date he would have completed 8 (eight) years of service counting from the date of his regularisation as Principal. The whole exercise should be completed within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Dr. Y. Mohendra Singh vs State of Manipur

Judgment