JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Respondent was found to be entitled for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme, by a learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court at Imphal Bench, whose view was endorsed by the Division Bench. The State of Manipur is in appeal.

3. There is practically no controversy so far as the factual aspects are concerned and, therefore, need to be noted in brief.

4. Respondent s father died in harness on 19.7.1980. A writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 1202/2001) was filed in the year 2001 by the respondent who pleaded that he was initially offered Grade-IV post by order dated 15.12.1999, but no appointment was made. The writ application was filed for direction to the concerned authorities for giving appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. The State resisted the claim on the ground that not only was the claim belated but also in view of the ban imposed on appointments, the question of making any appointment did not arise. Further the letter issued was inconsequential as there was a clear stipulation in the scheme itself about concurrence of Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division).

5. Learned Single