Back
M. V. MURALIDARAN
Ahanthem Abani Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the service of the petitioners commencing from the initial officiating appointment with effect from 3.2.1986 till the regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 13 of Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977 [for short, 'the Rules of 1977'] read with Office Memorandum dated 5.7.2003.
2. Heard Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. L. Monomala, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioners is that on the recommendation of the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the petitioners were appointed as Fish Farm Assistant, Revenue Assistant, Gear Assistant, Fish Farm Attendant, Craft Assistant and Laboratory Assistant on officiating basis against the temporary posts lying vacant in the Fishery Department. The petitioners after appointment have been discharging their duties properly and effectively to the satisfaction of their superiors continuously without any break. However, they were suddenly terminated from service without giving any opportunity. Thereafter, by the order date
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entire length of service from the date of initial appointment should be considered for the purposes of fixation of pensionary benefits.
Pension is a right that cannot be arbitrarily denied; employees with long-term service against sanctioned posts are entitled to have their past service counted for pension benefits, regardless of the....
Inaction by the State in not regularizing long-serving employees cannot deprive them of valid pension benefits under existing rules, irrespective of completed qualifying service requirements.
State delays in regularizing services do not justify withholding pension benefits for long-serving employees; equal treatment and fair engagement practices must be upheld.
The petitioners cannot claim regularization of their services from the date of initial appointment and were entitled to count only half of their service rendered in consolidated pay posts for pension....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioners would violate the equality clause under the Constitution of India.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
