K. SAKATHAN Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
STATE OF MANIPUR
Click here to view full judgement.
NOBIN SINGH,J. -
(1.) Heard Shri A. Mohendro, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Shri K. Jagat, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Government and Shri R.K. Deepak, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2, the Chief Engineer (PHED).
(2.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to convert the petitioner from Muster Roll to Work-charged establishment with effect from 11-01-1999.
(3.) Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a resident of Sihai Khullen Village, Ukhrul District belonging to the schedule tribe community. When a new Water Supply Scheme was installed at Sihai Village, Ukhrul, the petitioner was appointed/ engaged as a line-man on Muster Roll basis vide order dated 15.1.1992 issued by the Executive Engineer, Ukhrul Water Supply Division, Manipur. While the petitioner was serving in that capacity, the Chief Engineer (Rural), PHED, Manipur, pursuant to a letter dated 11-12-1998 of the State Government, issued an office order dated 11.01.1999 converting 888 Muster Roll employees, serving in all the Engineering Departments as on 31-12-1995, to Work-charged establishment through a Screening Committee. At the time when the said Muster Roll employees were converted into Work-charged establishment, the petitioner being posted at a far flung area didn't have the knowledge of such conversion and thus, unfortunately his name was left out from conversion. Having no alternative, he submitted a representation dated 13.06.2003 to the then Hon'ble Minister, PHED to consider his case for conversion from the date on which their colleagues having been converted into Work-charged establishment. On receipt of the said representation, the concerned Executive Engineer (PHED) wrote a letter dated 23.09.2003 to the Chief Engineer (PHED) requesting him to take necessary action for conversion who, in turn, informed the Secretary (PHED), Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 10-02-2004 that when the Muster Roll employees were converted into Work-charged establishment, the petitioner'sname was left out. In continuation of its earlier letter and after about five years, the Chief Engineer (PHED) wrote another letter dated 05-02-2009 to the Principal Secretary (PHED), Government of Manipur requesting him to examine and dispose of the matter relating to the cases of left out Muster Roll employees.
In spite of the letter dated 05.02.2009 being addressed to the Principal Secretary (PHED), the respondents failed to consider the case of the petitioner for conversion from Muster Roll to Work-charged establishment. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.123 of 2011 which was disposed of by this Court on 10-05-2013 with the direction that the case of the petitioner be considered along with other eligible employees for conversion to work-charged establishment. Despite the said order being passed by this Court, the respondents failed to consider the petitioner'scase which compelled him to approach this court again by way of this writ petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.