Decided on March 12,2021

P. Shyamsunder Singh Respondents


AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Lenin Hijam, learned Addl. AG, Manipur appearing for the petitioners and Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. The present review petition has been filed seeking for review of the judgment and order dated 22.01.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 638 of 2021.
(2.) The present review petition had been filed only on the ground that the impugned judgment and order dated 21.01.2021 is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of 'P.K. Sandhu (Mrs) v. Shiv Raj V. Patil' reported in (1997) 4 SCC 348 and 'State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh' reported in (2011) 6 SCC 597.
(3.) In the case of 'P.K. Sandhu (Mrs) v. Shiv Raj V. Patil' (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has at paragraph 9 held as under:- '9. It is seen that in 1955 Rules, which were framed by the Speaker in consultation with the President by exercising the power under clause (3) of Article 98 of the Constitution of India, Rule 4 contemplates the method or methods by which a post or class of posts may be filled. Since the 1962 Orders are only an outcome of the exercise of the said power, which was further modified by amendment in the Order dated 1-12-1974, the power of modification of the original order was still available to the Speaker and therefore, the deputation of Respondents 5 to 10 was not without any authority of law or in excess of authority. Therefore, they are not void ab initio for issue of a writ of quo warranto. It is not necessary for us to decide the controversy whether the Speaker had power, when services of Respondents 5 to 10 were requisitioned and availed of on transfer basis from the All India Administrative Service for the reason that under the amended Rules, one of the sources of recruitment to the service is transfer. Therefore, the continuance of Respondents 5 to 10 on deputation is in accordance with law and their retention in Lok Sabha Secretariat is valid as they have legal authority to remain in its Services. The further contention that availment of the services of the Secretary-General on contract basis is invalid, is without substance. It is settled legal position that an in-service officer, if taken on contract basis during the period of service, renders service on contract basis and on expiry thereof he gets to his substantive post in the parent Department from where he came to be in the services of the Lok Sabha Secretariat. In the interregnum, he cannot be compelled to lose his lien on the substantive post in the parent Department. Even if the services of an incumbent on superannuation is required in the public interest, the same can be availed on contract basis. Equally, if any other competent officer who on attaining superannuation from any other service was required to be taken in due to exigency of the service, it may be open to the Speaker to avail of services of such an experienced officer on contract basis for a specified period. Thus in either event the option available to the Speaker to avail of the services of an experienced officer as Secretary-General, cannot be assailed as invalid or arbitrary.' ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.