AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
Oinam Manisana Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K. Jagat, learned GA appearing for the respondents.
The present writ petition has been filed jointly by 32 petitioners with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07.11.2017 rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioners and also for directing the respondents to count/link up the uninterrupted services rendered by the petitioners as approved Teachers/LDCs just preceding the conversion of their aided schools to Government Schools and their regular appointment in Government service as qualifying services only for the purpose of availing pensionary benefits.
2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, 15 (fifteen) petitioners out of 32, i.e., petitioners no. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 29 have already crossed the age of superannuation.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that all the petitioners were appointed as Graduate Teachers (Sciences & Arts) and LDCs in erstwhile 13 (thirteen) Government Aided High Schools in th
East Coast Railway vs. Mahadev Appa Rao reported in (2010) 7 SCC 678
Krishna Swami vs. Union of India reported in (1992) 4 SCC 605
S.G. Jaisinghani vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1967 SC 1427
Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212
State of Orissa vs. Dhaniram Luhar reported in (2004) 5 SCC 568
Union of India vs. International Trading Co. reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437
Union of India vs. K.T. Shashtri reported in AIR 1990 SC 598
The court emphasized that the condition imposed by the Finance Department for absorption of the petitioners in Government services was arbitrary and legally unsustainable, and that the respondents ha....
Point of law: practice of the Government issuing Government Orders for fulfilling the needs of individual persons, for one reason or the other, should be put a stop to, as otherwise the clause of equ....
The court upheld that differential treatment in service absorption timelines does not violate constitutional rights as long as prior benefits remain intact.
The distinction between Government and privately managed schools is a reasonable and valid classification, and the Punjab Act and Central Service Rules govern the service conditions of teaching facul....
Denial of pension to employees of aided institutions appointed prior to promulgation of Rajasthan Civil Services (Contributory) Pension Rules, 2005 at par with Government servants as per Pension Rule....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.