State of Manipur and Others vs P. Binodkumar Singh

Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Actg. C.J.�This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2007 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 356 of 2006. The respondent was the petitioner in the writ application. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent was initially appointed as an Assistant Science Graduate Teacher in Laishram Deva High School, Manipur which was an aided school. The respondent joined the post on 10.08.1973. Vide Government order dated 14.08.1978, more than 100 schools including Laishram Dev High School, Manipur were taken over by the Government and vide order of the Governor dated 1st March, 1982, all the employees of such schools excluding Headmasters/Principals/Assistant Headmasters were appointed on regular basis against their respective posts subject to certain conditions. The respondent was posted as ad hoc Headmaster in Y.T. Junior High School on 11.12.1987. Vide order dated 31.5.1996, Government of Manipur allowed 94 teachers to draw scale of pay of a Headmaster w.e.f. 11.12.1987. On the recommendation of the DPC held on 17.02.2003, the respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster. Though the petitioner was initially appointed as ad-hoc Headmaster on 11.12.1987, he was not given continuity in service from the said date. The respondent, therefore, filed W.P.(C) No. 852 of 2003 before this Court to take into account his period of service from 11.12.1987 to 13.03.2003 for the purpose of qualifying service in order to get pension and pay. The said writ application was allowed by the learned single Judge on 22.03.2005 and the operative part of the order is quoted below:

"For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to accord necessary sanction linking up the petitioner''s service as Asstt. Headmaster of the High School/Headmaster of the Jr. High School w.e.f. 11.12.1987 which is the date of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner mentioned in the said order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 31.5.1996 (Annexure A/3 to the writ petition) to 13.3.2003 on which the petitioner was regularly appointed as Headmaster of the Jr. High School/Asstt. Headmaster of the High School on the recommendation of the duly constituted committee vide order of the Government of Manipur dated 13.3.2003 (Annexure A/4 to the writ petition) for the purpose of enabling him to earn qualifying service for pensionary benefit and pay only within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs."

In compliance of the said order, the Education (S) Department, Government of Manipur on 18th January, 2006 passed an order to the effect that the said period of service from 11.12.1987 to 13.3.2003 shall be taken into account for pensionary benefits only. It was further directed that respondent shall not be entitled to seniority etc. qualifying service for promotion to the higher post. Relevant part of the order dated 8th January, 2006 is quoted below:--

"Now, therefore, after careful examination, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that Shri P. Binodkumar Singh, Head Master of the Junior High School/Assistant Headmaster of the High School is entitled to earn qualifying service for pensionary benefits only. However, he is not entitled to seniority etc. and qualifying service for promotion to the higher grade."

Admittedly, the petitioner did not challenge the said order.

The Finance Department, Govt. of Manipur issued a notification dated 7th September, 1999 bringing about enhancement in scale of pay, changes in the pay structure in terms of Manipur Services (Revised Pay) (4th Amendment) Rules, 1999. It was provided that in the said notification that Assistant Headmaster and Headmasters of Jr. High Schools who have completed 12 years of regular service in the grade shall be entitled to scale of pay of Rs. 7500-12000/-p.m. The respondent was not allowed the said enhancement. Basically for which he filed writ application No. 356 of 2006 out of which present writ appeal arises.

His claim in the writ application is that his ad hoc period of service from 11.12.1987 to 13.3.2003 having been regularised and linked to the regular period of service, he is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000/-p.m. on completion of 12 years of service i.e. w.e.f. 11.12.1999. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on 27.09.2007. Therefore, the State respondents in the writ application have filed this appeal challenging the said order of the learned single Judge.

Shri Ng. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State appellants assailed the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge on the ground that in compliance of the earlier order passed by the Court in W.P.(C) No. 852 of 2003, the Education (S) Department had issued an order dated 18th January, 2006 granting benefits of the said period from 11.12.1987 to 13.3.2003 only for the purpose of pension and not for any other purpose. The said period of service was not regularised and therefore, the respondents cannot take benefit of the said ad-hoc period of service for the purpose of higher scale of pay.

Md. Ismail Khan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the earlier writ application, the Court directed to take into account the above period of service for the purpose of pension and pay which was allowed in the order dated 18th January, 2006 by the Education Department and therefore, there was no necessity on the part of the respondent to challenge the said order. Since the said period of ad hoc service was regularised in the earlier judgment, the said ad hoc period of service should be calculated and the higher scale of pay prescribed in the Government notification dated 7th September, 1999 issued by the Finance Department should be made available to the respondents. The learned single Judge on such admitted facts having allowed the writ application, there is no reason for this Court to disturb the same in appeal.

Undisputedly, at the time of taking over of Laishram Deva High School on 14.08.1978, respondent was working as Science Graduate Teacher. Only on 11.12.1987, he was posted in Y.T. Jr. High School as an ad hoc Headmaster.

After taking over the school, he was continuing as Graduate Teacher and subsequently as Ad hoc Headmaster but his promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster was made on 13.3.2003 on basis of recommendation of the DPC held on 17.2.2003. Therefore, he was regularly appointed as Assistant Headmaster/Headmaster on 13.3.2003. The question raised in the earlier writ application was whether this ad hoc period of service can be taken into account as regular service for the purpose of all service benefits. The learned single Judge while deciding the W.P.(C) No. 852 of 2003 filed by the respondent clearly directed that the said period of service from 11.12.1987 to 13.3.2003 shall be linked with regular service only to enable the respondent to earn qualifying service for pensionary benefits and pay. The Court, obviously meant that for the ad hoc period of service, respondent would be entitled to pay and the said period shall be calculated along with the regular period of service for the purpose of pension. In compliance of the said order, Education (S) Department, Govt. of Manipur issued an order on 18th January, 2006 directing that the respondent was only entitled for consideration of the ad hoc period of service to earn qualifying service for pensionary benefits only. It was also directed that he would not be entitled to seniority etc. and qualifying service for promotion to higher grade. This part of the order was not challenged by the petitioner and the petitioner accepted the same. If the said ad hoc period of service cannot be taken into account for the purpose of seniority and promotion, the same also cannot be taken into account for the purpose of higher scale of pay. Ad hoc period of service as directed by the Court can only be taken into account for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for payment of higher scale of pay provided in notification dated 7th September, 1999 issued by the Finance Department could not be allowed as the said period of ad hoc service could not be treated to be regular service for any purpose other than pension. In the order dated 18th January, 2006, it was specifically stated that the respondent would not be entitled to count the ad hoc period of service for the purpose of seniority or promotion. In view of the same, the said period of service also cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculating 12 years of service to get the enhanced scale of pay. In view of the reasons stated above, we are unable to sustain the order of the learned single Judge and accordingly set aside the same and allow the writ appeal.