STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANR. versus R.K. MANIKANTA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1262 · Decided: 19-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE,OF MANil>UR AND ANR. 
v. 
R.K. MANIKANT A SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 19, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.] 
Service Law : 
Promotion-Superintending Engineer in State of Manipur-Promo-
C tion to post of Additional Chief Engineer-Eligibility criteria-Relaxed in 
order to consider the case of respondent-Effect of-Respondent, when not 
promoted, filed writ petition before High Court-Meanwhile respondent 
promoted-Held, the implication of the order of grant of relaxation 
vis-a-vis the question as to whether the case of the resyondent was duly 
D considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the light of the 
order of relaxation passed by the State Government does not appear to 
have been adverted to before the High Court-It is for the appellant State 
now to consider the effect of such order of relaxation in the light of the 
order granting promotion to the respondent in proper perspective, keeping 
in view the fact that the respondent has already retired. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10207 of 
2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29 .1.2003 of the Gauhati High 
F Court, Imphal Bench in W.A. No. 84 of 2000. 
Khwairakpam Nobin Singh for the Appellants. 
Respondent-in-person (NP). 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The State ofManipur is in appeal before us, aggrieved by a judgment 
and order dated 29.1.2003 passed by the Gauhati High Court in Writ 
H Appeal No. 84 of2000, insofar as the respondent herein had been g~nted 
1262 
/ 
STATE v. R.K. MANIKANTA SINGH 
1263 
monetary benefits applicable to the post of Additional Chief Engineer on A 
the basis of order of relaxation passed in his favour ~y an order dated 
6.7.1999. In the said order the following directions were issued: 
"Firstly, because the facts of the present case do not reveal any 
conscious deprivation of the appellant's right by the State authori- B 
ties and secondly, on the principle of ''No work no pay' which 
principle in our considered view, must be made applicable to 
service of Jurisprudence in appropriate cases. On the contrary, we 
are inclined to hold that the ends of justice would be met if the 
state respondents are di_r_ected to notional~y fix the pay of the writ 
appellant in the scale of Addi. Chief Engineer w.e.f. such date/ C 
dates when the principal respondents in the ~ppeal were promoted 
to the said post and on that basis to compute the pensionary 
benefits due to the appellant." 
It is not in dispute that an order of relaxation was granted in favour D 
of the respondent herein on or about 6. 7.1999 which is in the following 
terms : 
"No. 9/3/83-IFC (Pt. 11): After careful examination of the service 
matter in respect of Shri R.K. Manikanta Singh, Superintending 
Engineer, IFC Department, Manipur, the Governor of Manipur is E 
pleased to relax the provision under Column-II of the M.P.S.C. 
Form-8 of the Recruitment Rule of the Additional Chief Engineer 
1993 enquiring the Superintending Engineer with 5 years regular 
service in respect of Shri R.K. Manikanata Singh, Superintending 
Engineer for his eligibility for promotion to the post of Additional F 
Chief Engineer in the public interest. 
2. This is issued under the power to relax clause of Rule 5 
of the Additional Chief Engineer, recruitment Rules, 1993." 
Such relaxation was purported tc have been granted in terms of the G 
recruitment rules applicable to the post of Additional Chief Engineer in the 
Public Health Engineering Department. It appears that the said post, having 
regard to Notification dated 25.11.1993, is a selection post. 
The learned counsel for the appellant placed before us the minutes H 
1264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A of the meetings held on 26.8.1999 and 20.10.2001 by the Departmental 
Promotion Committee to show that although the case of the respondent had 
been considered for promotion but he had not been found fit therefor. 
According to the learned counsel, the order of relaxation was passed by 
the State so as to enable the Departmental Promotion Committee to 
B consider the case of the respondent, b~t the same by itself would not lead 
to the conclusion that by reason thereof he would be deemed to have been 
promoted. The directions issued by the High Court, the learned counsel 
would contend, therefore, must be held to be wrong. 
The respondent who appears in person urged that he is not concerned 
C with the grant of promotion to the post of Add

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.