L CHANDRAKISHORE SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR
LAWS(SC)-1999-10-119
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GAUHATI)
Decided on
October 01,1999
L.CHANDRAKISHORE SINGH,N.BIJOY SINGH,VANDANA KARKI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MANIPUR,L.CHANDRAKISHORE SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DIRECT RECRUIT CLASS-11 ENGINEERING OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION [REFERRED]S B PATWARDHAN K V RAMKRISHNA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED]
BALESHWAR DASS ARHANT PRASAD JAIN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
G P DOVAL VS. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF U P [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
NIRVAIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2001-12-123] [REFERRED]SHRI TENSIN GOMBU KHRIME & OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-6-107] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. TRILOKI NATH PANDEY H C C P 232 [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-201] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MRINAL KANTI SAMADDAR [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
O.P. KASHYAP S/O BABU LAL KASHYAP AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. THROU PRIN. SECY. SECRETARIAT ADMIN. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-415] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI SINGH AND EIGHT ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-7-118] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR RATH VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1999-11-90] [REFERRED]
RAJVIR SINGH VS. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KISAN DEGREE COLLEGE, SIMBHAOLI & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-308] [REFERRED TO]
DAVID LALLAWMKIMA FANAI VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-11-103] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK PANDEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
K MALATHI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2012-1-120] [REFERRED TO]
JATINDRA PRASAD DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2011-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2004-7-151] [REFERRED]
AARTI BHATNAGAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-10-202] [REFERRED TO]
P N PREMACHANDRAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-8-323] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT SAXENA S/O M.C. SAXENA VS. ADDL. REGISTRAR LAW COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-365] [REFERRED TO]
DESH RAJ SOOD VS. CHIEF JUSTICE [LAWS(HPH)-2002-12-22] [REFERRED]
S. N SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-2-159] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL DOLABHAI PANABHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
FARHAT HUSSAIN AZAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
DR. RAJAT MOHANTY VS. ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2000-6-50] [REFERRED TO]
A.K. TEMBORE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
HANSA DUTT PANDEY VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2011-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
P. BHASKARAN AND ORS. VS. S.K.M. SIVAKUMARAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF VS. DAYA SHANKER TIWARI [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-239] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MILAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-2-113] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-66] [REFERRED TO]
Virendra Kumar Verma VS. State of Uttaranchal and others [LAWS(UTN)-2004-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
LOKENDRA SINGH S/O SH. RAGHUVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-11-241] [REFERRED TO]
RAJANI KANT RANJAN AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-4-128] [REFERRED TO]
RAJANI KANT RANJAN AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-4-128] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAIN KAPOOR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-103] [REFERRED TO]
DIWAKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-214] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAND TOLANI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
N C BANAWALA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE PALANPUR [LAWS(GJH)-2003-1-8] [REFERRED]
S. SHANMUGAVEL VS. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-89] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKTI SINGH VS. SLATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2000-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
DHANSUKHBHAI LALLUBHAI BHAVSAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
GH HASSAN MALA VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2002-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR AWASTHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
ER. RAZOUVOLIE KELIO VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2017-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
ER. RAZOUVOLIE KELIO VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2017-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
DALBIR SINGH VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2007-12-181] [REFERRED]
AJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2000-2-117] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-208] [REFERRED TO]
ARJANBHAI R ASHIYANI VS. GUJARAT STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2000-9-105] [REFERRED]
R A NAIR VS. COMMISSIONER OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING [LAWS(GJH)-2003-2-45] [REFERRED]
SANDHYARANI SAHOO VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ORI)-2009-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
V. VINCENT VELANKANNI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
T VIJAYAN VS. DIV RAILWAY MANAGER [LAWS(SC)-2000-4-224] [RELIED]
RAGHU RAJ SINGH CHAUHAN VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-95] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2005-7-155] [REFERRED]
S K KHAJURIA VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2004-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
S K KHAJURIA VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2004-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. MADAN SINGH [LAWS(J&K)-2017-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DEBNATH VS. ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(GAU)-2000-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-311] [REFERRED TO]
Er. Relu Ram Vardhan VS. State of Himachal Pradesh [LAWS(HPH)-2010-11-159] [REFERRED TO]
DR. RITA WAHAL VS. CHANCELLOR, KING GEORGES MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW & 3 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-131] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN PARMAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-3-116] [REFERRED TO]
SANGITA REANG VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR BATRA VS. CHAUDHRI CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY [LAWS(UTN)-2004-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR VERMA VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(UTN)-2004-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR CHAND JAIN VS. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2001-1-140] [REFERRED]
S SUMNYAN VS. LIMI NIRI [LAWS(SC)-2010-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2020-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
M P PALANISAMY VS. A KRISHNAN [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR DHARMANI VS. RAMESH CHANDERA CHAJTA [LAWS(HPH)-2011-5-175] [REFERRED TO]
TANA KAYA TARA VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2002-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
GRACEFIELD K. SANGMA VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-7-90] [REFERRED TO]
E SHANKAR REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-6-98] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-2-120] [REFERRED TO]
RAMILABEN M PATEL VS. GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(GJH)-2011-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
RAYMOND UCO DENIM PRIVATE LTD. VS. PRAFUL WARADE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
S.P. Kalas, S/o. Pandurang Rama Kolas VS. Karnataka Land Army Corporation Ltd., Chinnaswamy Stadium, Rajbhavan Road, Bangalore - 550 001, by its Managing Director [LAWS(KAR)-2011-10-58] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHANDRA KANDPAL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-8-143] [REFERRED TO]
K MADALAIMUTHU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2006-7-128] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY K. DHAND VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2003-4-144] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Sethi, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)In all these appeals the point of law sought to be determined is regarding the principle governing the determination of seniority of the persons belonging to Manipur Police Service governed by Manipur Police Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as "MPS Rules"). It has to be determined as to whether or not the police officers belonging to the service who had continuous, uninterrupted, meritorious officiating service are entitled to the benefit to be counted the same towards their seniority. The ambit and scope of the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Harish Chander Bhatia, (1995) 2 SCC 48 needs also to be ascertained. The rival contentions are required to be adjudicated on comparative study of the Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Island Police Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "DANI Rules") and the MPS Rules.
(3.)Brief facts of the case, as extracted from SLP (C) No. 18221/98 filed by Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh are that the appellant herein joined the Manipur Police as Sub-Inspector on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission and was confirmed to the post on 16-6-1976. Vide Order No. 13(1)/9/79-H(PT) dated 3rd June, 1980 (Annexure P-1) the Government of Manipur appointed 31 Sub-Inspectors of Police, including the appellants, as Inspectors of Police on promotion in the scale of pay of Rs. 488-28-518-EB-25-749-EB-38-958 plus other allowances as admissible under the Rules with effect from 3rd June, 1980 on regular basis, until further orders (emphasis supplied). Vide Order No. 3/12/83-MPS/DF(i) dated 12th October, 1983 (Annexure P-2) the Government of Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 24 of the MPS Rules, 1965 appointed the appellant along with 27 others, in the order of their merit, to the Manipur Police Service in officiating capacity in the pay-scale of Rs. 900-40-1220-EB-50-1720 with immediate effect, until further orders. Order No. 13(1)/4/79-H(i) dated 16-9-1989 shows that on the recommendation of the DPC held on 14-1-1985, the Governor of Manipur was pleased to confirm the appellant and others as Inspectors of Police in the Manipur Police Department with effect from 14-1-1985 i.e., the date on which the DPC recommended for confirmation, until further orders. However, vide Order No. 3/12/83-MPS/DP (PT-1) dated 16-8-1989 the respondent-Government issued an order, purported to be under Rule 5(1)(b) read with Rule 16 of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965, appointing on promotion the officers mentioned therein including the appellant, in order of their seniority to Manipur Police (Junior Grade) in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200 with immediate effect. The tentative seniority list of the MPS officers as on 22nd September, 1998 showed the appellant's name at Sr. No. 72 allegedly even below the direct recruit (MPS Grade-II) of the year 1988. He submitted his objections to the tentative seniority list on 26th December, 1989. However, the seniority list issued on 30th March, 1990 showed his name at Sl. No. 71, still below the direct recuits (MPS Grade II) of 1988 batch. Feeling aggrieved of his placement in the seniority, the appellant filed writ petition being Civil Rule No. 166 of 1990 before the Gauhati High Court for a direction to regularise his officiating appointment to MPS Grade-II with effect from 12-10-1983 by revising/quashing/modifying the aforesaid appointment order dated 16-8-1989 insofar as it related to him. He reserved his right to challenge the seniority list of the MPS. The writ petition is stated to have been disposed of by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench giving directions that the appellant shall be given the benefit of regularisation from the date of his officiating appointment provided the same was continuous. The appellant again filed a civil writ bearing No. 60/91 seeking inter alia a direction to consider him for promotion to the next higher post of Additional Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commandants of Manipur Rifles. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent-Government filed an application for modification of its order dated 20th August, 1980 passed in C.R. No. 166/90 which was subsequently registered as Civil Review No. 13/96. The appellant filed another writ petition bearing Civil Rule No. 307/92 for quashing the order of the Manipur Government dated 16-9-1985 and seeking a direction for his confirmation as Inspector of Police. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition on 11-12-1992 the Gauhati High Court directed the Government either to confirm the appellant as Inspector of Police with effect from 3-6-1980 or from the date when his juniors were confirmed. The High Court directed the deletion of the words "until further orders" mentioned in his regular appointment order dated 3rd June, 1980 (Annexure P-1). It is admitted that the aforesaid judgment was not appealed against. On 21st May, 1996 Civil Review No. 13/96 was disposed of by a Division Bench by setting aside the order dated 20th August, 1990 passed in Civil Rule 166 of 1990. The said Civil Rule No. 166/90 was restored to the file and the appellant was directed to implead all those officers above him in the seniority list of MPS Grade-II, who were likely to be affected adversely in case if reliefs as prayed for by him were granted. The said writ petition was disposed of by a single Judge of the High Court on 18-9-1997 allowing the same with directions to the respondent Government to treat the date of officiating appointment of the appellant to the MPS Grade-II as the date of his regular appointment. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment the private respondents filed Writ Appeal No. 162/97 which was referred to a larger Bench by formulating three points for decision vide order dated 13-5-1998. The Full Bench vide the impugned order in these appeals set aside the order of the learned single Judge and dismissed the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 166/90.
(2.)In all these appeals the point of law sought to be determined is regarding the principle governing the determination of seniority of the persons belonging to Manipur Police Service governed by Manipur Police Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as "MPS Rules"). It has to be determined as to whether or not the police officers belonging to the service who had continuous, uninterrupted, meritorious officiating service are entitled to the benefit to be counted the same towards their seniority. The ambit and scope of the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Harish Chander Bhatia, (1995) 2 SCC 48 needs also to be ascertained. The rival contentions are required to be adjudicated on comparative study of the Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Island Police Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "DANI Rules") and the MPS Rules.
(3.)Brief facts of the case, as extracted from SLP (C) No. 18221/98 filed by Shri L. Chandrakishore Singh are that the appellant herein joined the Manipur Police as Sub-Inspector on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission and was confirmed to the post on 16-6-1976. Vide Order No. 13(1)/9/79-H(PT) dated 3rd June, 1980 (Annexure P-1) the Government of Manipur appointed 31 Sub-Inspectors of Police, including the appellants, as Inspectors of Police on promotion in the scale of pay of Rs. 488-28-518-EB-25-749-EB-38-958 plus other allowances as admissible under the Rules with effect from 3rd June, 1980 on regular basis, until further orders (emphasis supplied). Vide Order No. 3/12/83-MPS/DF(i) dated 12th October, 1983 (Annexure P-2) the Government of Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 24 of the MPS Rules, 1965 appointed the appellant along with 27 others, in the order of their merit, to the Manipur Police Service in officiating capacity in the pay-scale of Rs. 900-40-1220-EB-50-1720 with immediate effect, until further orders. Order No. 13(1)/4/79-H(i) dated 16-9-1989 shows that on the recommendation of the DPC held on 14-1-1985, the Governor of Manipur was pleased to confirm the appellant and others as Inspectors of Police in the Manipur Police Department with effect from 14-1-1985 i.e., the date on which the DPC recommended for confirmation, until further orders. However, vide Order No. 3/12/83-MPS/DP (PT-1) dated 16-8-1989 the respondent-Government issued an order, purported to be under Rule 5(1)(b) read with Rule 16 of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965, appointing on promotion the officers mentioned therein including the appellant, in order of their seniority to Manipur Police (Junior Grade) in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200 with immediate effect. The tentative seniority list of the MPS officers as on 22nd September, 1998 showed the appellant's name at Sr. No. 72 allegedly even below the direct recruit (MPS Grade-II) of the year 1988. He submitted his objections to the tentative seniority list on 26th December, 1989. However, the seniority list issued on 30th March, 1990 showed his name at Sl. No. 71, still below the direct recuits (MPS Grade II) of 1988 batch. Feeling aggrieved of his placement in the seniority, the appellant filed writ petition being Civil Rule No. 166 of 1990 before the Gauhati High Court for a direction to regularise his officiating appointment to MPS Grade-II with effect from 12-10-1983 by revising/quashing/modifying the aforesaid appointment order dated 16-8-1989 insofar as it related to him. He reserved his right to challenge the seniority list of the MPS. The writ petition is stated to have been disposed of by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench giving directions that the appellant shall be given the benefit of regularisation from the date of his officiating appointment provided the same was continuous. The appellant again filed a civil writ bearing No. 60/91 seeking inter alia a direction to consider him for promotion to the next higher post of Additional Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commandants of Manipur Rifles. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent-Government filed an application for modification of its order dated 20th August, 1980 passed in C.R. No. 166/90 which was subsequently registered as Civil Review No. 13/96. The appellant filed another writ petition bearing Civil Rule No. 307/92 for quashing the order of the Manipur Government dated 16-9-1985 and seeking a direction for his confirmation as Inspector of Police. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition on 11-12-1992 the Gauhati High Court directed the Government either to confirm the appellant as Inspector of Police with effect from 3-6-1980 or from the date when his juniors were confirmed. The High Court directed the deletion of the words "until further orders" mentioned in his regular appointment order dated 3rd June, 1980 (Annexure P-1). It is admitted that the aforesaid judgment was not appealed against. On 21st May, 1996 Civil Review No. 13/96 was disposed of by a Division Bench by setting aside the order dated 20th August, 1990 passed in Civil Rule 166 of 1990. The said Civil Rule No. 166/90 was restored to the file and the appellant was directed to implead all those officers above him in the seniority list of MPS Grade-II, who were likely to be affected adversely in case if reliefs as prayed for by him were granted. The said writ petition was disposed of by a single Judge of the High Court on 18-9-1997 allowing the same with directions to the respondent Government to treat the date of officiating appointment of the appellant to the MPS Grade-II as the date of his regular appointment. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment the private respondents filed Writ Appeal No. 162/97 which was referred to a larger Bench by formulating three points for decision vide order dated 13-5-1998. The Full Bench vide the impugned order in these appeals set aside the order of the learned single Judge and dismissed the writ petition being Civil Rule No. 166/90.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.