- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Manipur v. Thingujam Brojen Meetei .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals arise out of two writ petitions (Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993 and Civil Rule No. 936 of 1993) that were allowed by the Gauhati High Court. The writ petitioners—Thingujam Brojen Meetei (son of late Th. Amujao Singh) and Smt. L. Ongbi Sanyaima Devi (wife of late L. Kumar Singh)—sought compassionate appointment under the Government of Manipur’s Die-in-Harness Scheme (“the Scheme”) after the death of their respective family members, both of whom had been confirmed work-charged employees.
The High Court, relying on its earlier decision in N. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur, held that once a work-charged employee is confirmed, his dependants are entitled to the benefits of the Scheme. The State of Manipur appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging this interpretation and the consequential directions to consider the respondents for appointment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether dependants of confirmed work-charged employees are entitled to compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme of the Government of Manipur.
- What is the legal effect of the Supreme Court’s dismissal in limine of an earlier special-leave petition (N. Arun Kumar Singh) on the binding nature of the High Court’s judgment under Article 141 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments (State of Manipur)
- The Scheme, as amended (8-5-1984) and later revised (31-8-1992), explicitly excludes work-charged employees; therefore, their dependants cannot claim compassionate appointment.
- Confirmation of a work-charged employee does not alter his fundamental status as “work-charged.”
- The earlier dismissal in limine of SLP No. 285 of 1993 does not amount to affirmation of the High Court’s view and has no precedential value under Article 141.
Respondents' Arguments
- Relying on N. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur, they contended that confirmation changes the character of a work-charged employee, bringing him within the purview of the Scheme.
- The Supreme Court’s prior dismissal of the SLP against N. Arun Kumar Singh was asserted to have settled the issue and to be binding precedent.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| N. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur | High Court view that confirmation converts a work-charged employee into a regular one for purposes of the Scheme. | Expressly overruled; Supreme Court held confirmation does not change the work-charged status. |
| Rup Diamonds v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 356 | Dismissing an SLP by a non-speaking order does not amount to affirmation of the lower-court judgment. | Cited to reject the High Court’s reliance on the earlier dismissal of SLP No. 285 of 1993 as binding precedent. |
| Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT 1986 Supp SCC 700 | Same principle as above regarding non-speaking dismissal of SLPs. | Relied on for the proposition that such dismissals do not create binding law under Article 141. |
| Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 | Reinforces that non-speaking dismissal of SLP lacks precedential force. | Further authority for rejecting the High Court’s conclusion. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court examined the chronological evolution of the Scheme:
- Original OM dated 2-5-1984 permitted inclusion of work-charged employees’ dependants.
- Corrigendum dated 8-5-1984 restricted the Scheme to “regular government employees.”
- Revised OM dated 31-8-1992 expressly excluded ad hoc, officiating, work-charged, casual, and muster-roll appointees.
2. While confirmation confers certain service benefits on work-charged employees under the Terminal Benefits Rules, it does not transform them into regular employees. They remain “work-charged” for all other purposes.
3. Consequently, the statutory language of the revised Scheme bars dependants of even confirmed work-charged employees from seeking compassionate appointment.
4. On the precedential issue, the Court held that dismissal of SLP No. 285 of 1993 in limine was a non-speaking order. Under established jurisprudence (Rup Diamonds and allied cases), such dismissal does not affirm the correctness of the impugned judgment nor does it create binding precedent under Article 141.
5. Therefore, the Gauhati High Court erred in treating the dismissal as conclusive and binding. Its reliance on N. Arun Kumar Singh was misplaced.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS ALLOWED. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgments dated 29-6-1995 in Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993 and Civil Rule No. 936 of 1993, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents.
Implications: The ruling clarifies that dependants of work-charged employees, even after those employees are confirmed, are not eligible for compassionate appointment under the Manipur Die-in-Harness Scheme. The decision overrules the contrary view of the Gauhati High Court and underscores that non-speaking dismissals of special-leave petitions do not constitute precedent.
S.C Agrawal, J.— Leave granted.
2. Both these appeals raise common questions relating to appointment on compassionate grounds under the Die-in-Harness Scheme (for short ‘the Scheme’) framed by the Government of Manipur.
3. By office memorandum dated 2-5-1984 the Government of Manipur issued the Scheme for giving appointment to dependants of government servants who died in harness. In paragraph (3) of the Scheme, as initially framed, it was provided:
“The concession under the above Scheme shall also be applicable to those dependants mentioned in (2) above in respect of those work-charged employees who died in harness.”
4. By corrigendum dated 8-5-1984 office memorandum dated 2-5-1984 was modified and paragraph (3) was substituted by the following provision:
“The Scheme shall be applicable only to regular government employees in a vacancy available in the department in which the deceased employee worked.”
5. Subsequently, by office memorandum dated 31-8-1992, the Scheme was revised and in the revised Scheme it was expressly provided:
“Since the appointment under the Scheme is meant only for giving immediate relief to the bereaved family, the application complete in all respects should be submitted to the Department concerned within one year from the date of expiry of the deceased government servant:
Provided that the applicant has not crossed the maximum age-limit prescribed under the RR at the time when proposal in its complete form is submitted to the Government and the government servant was a regular/substantive appointee under the State Government on the day of demise/retired on medical ground (invalid pension). The Scheme will not be applicable to ad hoc/officiating/work-charged/casual/muster roll appointees.”
6. For work-charged employees the Government of Manipur has framed the Terminal Benefits for Work-Charged Staff of PWD/IPC/PHE/MI/Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978 (for short ‘the Terminal Benefits Rules’). Under the Terminal Benefits Rules permanent work-charged employees are allowed certain benefits in the pattern of CPWD in the matter of pension, gratuity, retirement, leave, holidays, etc.
7. Thingujam Brojen Meetei, the respondent in civil appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20376 of 1995 is the son of late Th. Amujao Singh, who was employed as a work-charged truck driver with the Government of Manipur. Th. Amujao Singh was appointed on 21-2-1978 and he expired on 31-1-1992. After his death, by order dated 15-7-1992, he was confirmed on the post of work-charged truck driver with effect from 1-10-1990. After the death of Th. Amujao Singh, the respondent sought appointment under the Scheme. Since he was not given an appointment, he filed a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993) in the Gauhati High Court seeking an appropriate direction for his appointment on compassionate grounds. The said writ petition of the respondent has been allowed by the High Court by judgment dated 29-6-1995, whereby the appellants have been directed to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to a suitable post commensurate with his educational qualifications under the Scheme. The submission urged on behalf of the appellants that the Scheme was not applicable since the father of the respondent was a work-charged employee was not accepted by the High Court and, in this regard, the High Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in N. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur wherein it was held that a confirmed work-charged employee is entitled to the benefits of the Scheme inasmuch as after confirmation the character of appointment of a work-charged employee is changed. It appears that SLP (Civil) No. 285 of 1993 filed against the said decision of the High Court was dismissed in limine by this Court on 15-2-1993. In the impugned judgment the High Court has observed that the matter has been finally concluded by this Court in dismissing the appeal and the said decision of this Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution.
8. Smt L. Ongbi Sanyaima Devi, the respondent in civil appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19612 of 1995, is the wife of late L. Kumar Singh who was employed as work-charged Handyman with the Government of Manipur. L. Kumar Singh was appointed as work-charged Handyman with effect from 21-2-1978 and he continued in such employment till he died on 4-8-1991. He was confirmed on the post of work-charged Handyman with effect from 1-3-1987. After the death of her husband, the respondent sought appointment under the Scheme. Since she was not given appointment, she moved the Gauhati High Court by filing a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 936 of 1993) which has been allowed by the High Court by judgment dated 29-6-1995 for the same reasons as in the judgment referred to earlier in Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993.
9. As noticed earlier, in the Scheme, as initially framed by OM dated 2-5-1984, there was a provision in paragraph (3) for appointment of dependants of work-charged employees who died in harness. But by corrigendum dated 8-5-1984, the office memorandum dated 2-5-1984 was amended and paragraph (3) was substituted and in the amended provision it was provided that the Scheme shall be applicable to regular government employees in the vacancy available in the department in which the deceased employee worked. The matter was further clarified beyond doubt in the revised scheme issued by OM dated 31-8-1992 wherein it is expressly stated that the Scheme will not be applicable to ad hoc/officiating/work-charged/casual/muster roll appointees. We are unable to agree with the view of the High Court in N. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur that a change comes about in the character of a work-charged employee after confirmation and the Scheme is applicable to him. In our view, the only change that is brought about as a result of confirmation of a work-charged employee is that, by virtue of the Terminal Benefits Rules, a confirmed work-charged employee is entitled to certain benefits including pension and gratuity under Rule 6 of the Terminal Benefits Rules which benefits he would otherwise have not been entitled to. But a work-charged employee after confirmation does not cease to be a work-charged employee and he continues to be a work-charged employee. The bar regarding applicability of the Scheme to work-charged employee would, therefore, continue to be applicable and the dependants of such a confirmed work-charged employee cannot claim the benefit of an appointment on the basis of the Scheme.
10. It is no doubt true that Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 285 of 1993 filed by the State of Manipur against the decision of the High Court in N. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur was dismissed by this Court by order dated 15-2-1993. The said special leave petition was, however, dismissed in limine without expressing any opinion on the merits of the impugned judgment. The dismissal of a special leave petition by a non-speaking order which does not contain the reasons for dismissal does not amount to acceptance of the correctness of the decision sought to be appealed against. The effect of such a non-speaking order of dismissal without anything more only means that this Court has decided only that it is not a fit case where the special leave petition should be granted. Such an order does not constitute law laid down by this Court for the purpose of Article 141 of the Constitution. (See: Rup Diamonds v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 356; Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT 1986 Supp SCC 700 and Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187. The High Court was, therefore, in error in holding that by dismissing the special leave petition against the judgment in N. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur this Court has affirmed the said decision of the High Court and the said view of this Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution.
11. For the reasons aforementioned the judgments of the High Court under challenge in both the appeals whereby it has been held that the respondents are entitled to be considered for appointment on the basis of the Scheme cannot be sustained and have to be set aside. The appeals are, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgments of the High Court dated 29-6-1995 in Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993 and Civil Rule No. 936 of 1993 are set aside and the said writ petition filed by the respondents are dismissed. No costs.
12. By order dated 22-9-1995, this Court, while directing that notice be issued to the respondent in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20376 of 1995, also directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs 3000 towards the cost of the respondent for contesting this petition. The said amount had been deposited and has been permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent in the said matter. The said amount shall be retained by him.
Alert