STATE OF MANIPUR versus THINGUJAM BROJEN MEETI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 10-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF MANIPUR 
v. 
THINGUJAM BROJEN MEET! 
MAY 10, 1996 
B 
(S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
Compassionate appointment-Die-in-Hamess Schem&-Dependents of 
C confinned Work-charged employees-Compassionate appointment-Refusal 
of-Held : character of a Work-charged employee did not change after 
confinnati01>-Revised Scheme not applicable to such confinned Work-
charged employees-Hence, their dependents not entitled to benefits of com-
passionate appointment-Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Staff of 
PWD!IPC!PHE/Ml/Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978, Rule 6. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950: A1tic/e 141. 
Dismissal of SLP by non-speaking orde1--Held : did not amount to 
acceptance of correctness of bnpugned decision-Hence, did not constitute 
E law laid down by Supreme Court. 
The appellant-State issued a Scheme for giving appointment to 
dependents of government servants under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. The 
Scheme was subsequently revised and in the revised Scheme it was express-
ly stated that the Scheme would not be applicable to work-charged 
F 
employees. However, confirmed work-charged employees were entitled to 
certain benefits including pension and gratuity under Rule 6 of Terminal 
Benefits for Work Charged Staff of PWD/IPC/PHE/Ml/Electricity, 
Manipur Rules, 1978. 
The respondents were dependents of confirmed work-charged 
G employees of the appellant-State who died in harness. After their death, 
the respondents sought appointment under the Scheme. Since they were 
not given appointment on compassionate grounds they filed writ petitions 
in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petitions following its 
earlier judgment that a change came about in the character of a work-
H charged employee after confirmation and, therefore, the Scheme was ap-
738 
-
STATE v. THINGUJAM BROJEN MEET! 
739 
plicable to him. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said earlier A 
judgment of the High Court was dismissed by this Court in limine. The 
High Court had observed that dismissal of the SLP constituted law laid 
down by this Court and was binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court erred in holding that a change comes 
about in the character of a work-charged employee after confirmation and 
the Scheme is applicable to him. TI1e only change that is brought about 
as a result of confirmation of a work-charged employee is that, by virtue 
B 
of the Terminal Benefits for Works Charged Staff of C 
PWD/IPC/PHE/Ml/Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978, 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 employ 
after confirmation does not cease to be a work-charged employee and D 
he continues to be a work-charged employee. The bar regarding ap-
plicability of the Scheme to work-charged employee would, therefore, 
continue to be applicable and the dependents of such a confirmed 
work-charged employee cannot claim the benefit of con1passionate on 
the basis of the Scheme. [742-H; 743-A-B] 
N. AIUn Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur, C.Rs. Nos. 2978 of 1991 
and 235 of 1991, decided by the Assam High Court on 27.3.1982, overruled. 
E 
2. The dismissal of a special leave petition by a non.speaking order 
\Vhich does not contain the reasons for dismissal does not amount to 
F 
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 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. [743-D-E] 
G 
M/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] 2 SCC 
356; Late Nawab Sir Mir Osnian Ali Khan v. Conunissioner of Wealth TCLt, 
Hyderabad, [1986] Supp. SCC 700 and Supreme Court Employees Welfare 
Association v. Union of India, [1989] 4 sec 187, relied on. 
H 
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
N. Arnn Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur, CRs. Nos. 2978 of 1991 and 
235 of 1991, decided by the Assam High Court on 27.3.1982, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8226 of 
1996 Etc. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.6.95 of the Assam High 
Court in C.R. No
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.