IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Oinam Chaoba Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 253 of 2021
Decided On : 05-09-2022
Salary Revision - Manipur Municipality Act - Section 46 of the Manipur Municipality Act - The judgment discusses the applicability of Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 to the employees of Municipal Councils and the issue of cash payment with retrospective effect. The court highlights the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and its application to the case. The court quashes paragraph (i) of the impugned order dated 7.11.2017 and directs the respondents to make cash payment and arrears to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.2010 as prescribed under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash paragraph No.1 of the impugned order dated 7.11.2017 and to direct the respondents to pay revised salary with effect from 1.1.2010. The respondents had issued an order granting cash payment with effect from 1.4.2017 instead of 1.4.2010, resulting in the petitioners forfeiting their entitled arrears.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to the revised pay scale under Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 with cash payment from 1.4.2010, as similarly situated employees had been granted the same benefit earlier. The court held that the impugned order was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Section 46 of the Manipur Municipality Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the effective date for revising pay scales and the entitlement of the petitioners to arrears of pay under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010. The court also considered the applicability of Section 46 of the Manipur Municipality Act and the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Section 46 of the Manipur Municipality Act to rule in favor of the petitioners. It emphasized that there should be no discrimination between similarly situated employees and that the petitioners were entitled to the same benefits as their counterparts in the State Government Departments.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and paragraph (i) of the impugned order dated 7.11.2017 was quashed. The respondents were directed to make cash payment and arrears to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.2010 as prescribed under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
1. The writ petition has been filed to quash paragraph No.1 of the impugned order dated 7.11.2017 and to direct the respondents to pay revised salary to the petitioners by calculating with effect from 1.1.2010 for cash payment as prescribed by the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010.
2. Heard Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Th. Sukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are now serving in different Municipal Councils and their service conditions and salary are also governed by the Rules adopted by the State Government for the employees from time to time, which includes pay revision Rules issued from time to time. By placing reliance upon Section 46 of the Manipur Municipality Act, 1994, the learned counsel submitted that the disciplinary action, condition of the service and qualifications in respect of the employees of a Nagar Panchayat or a Council shall be the same as applicable to the employees of the State Government.
4. The learned senior counsel further submitted that Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 [for short, 'ROP 2010'] was produced on 5.5.2010 and the said ROP shall be deemed to have come into force notionally on 1.1.2006 with cash payment from 1.4.2010 with effect from 1.1.1996 thereby giving financial benefits to all employees under the Government of Manipur with retrospective effect from the date the said pay revision rules came into force. The said ROP 2010 is also applicable to the employees of the Municipal Councils.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that though all the employees in the Municipal Councils were granted the same revised pay scales prescribed for their respective counter parts in the State Government Departments retrospectively for cash payment with all benefits, including arrears of pay etc., for the ROP 2010, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 7.11.2017 wherein the employees of the urban local bodies of Manipur are given cash payment with effect from 1.4.2017 instead with effect from 1.4.2010.
6. The learned senior counsel urged that the revision of pay scales of the petitioners without benefit of arrears of pay from 1.4.2010 results to forfeit the right of the petitioners to get their entitled arrears and that too without benefit of arrears of pay with effect form 1.4.2010 as prescribed in the ROP 2010, which his unreasonable and improper from the part of the respondents. Thus, a prayer is made to quash paragraph No.1 of the impugned order dated 7.11.2017 and to direct the respondents to pay the revised salary to the petitioners with effect from 1.1.2010.
7. Per contra, Mr. Th. Sukumar, the learned Government Advocate submitted that Rule 2(f) of ROP 2010, which was notified on 5.5.2010 provides that these Rules shall not apply to persons whose particulars are not figured in the Computerised Personal Information System and the respondent authorities only clarified the rules in the Office Memorandum dated 7.7.2010 that the revision of pay scales of the employees of the Autonomous Bodies/Local Bodies/Grandin- Aid Institutions/Public Sector Undertaking etc. shall be made only with the concurrence of Finance Department subject to availability of sufficient fund for the purpose.
8. He would submit that another Office Memorandum dated 28.2.2011 was issued regarding grant of revised pay under ROP 2010 in respect of the employees of Autonomous Bodies/Local Bodies/Grand-in-Aid Institutions/Public Sector Undertaking etc. and as per the above OMs and decisions of the Cabinet, the following grant-in-aid bodies had been granted ROP 2010 with immediate effect or 1st day of months without notional effect:
(i) Manipur Khadi & Village Board w.e.f. 22.09.2016.
(ii) Manipur Remote Sensing Application Centre (MARSAC) w.e.f. 1.5.2015.
(iii) Manipur Public School, Koirengei w.e.f. 1.4.2016.
(iv) Manipur Tribal Development Corporation,
Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. vs. Union of India and another
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and its relevance to the entitlement of employees to ....
Equal pay for equal work applies to absorbed employees from merged entities performing identical duties as regulars, entitling pay scale parity, benefits, arrears despite initial lump sum irregular a....
The court reaffirmed the principle that equally situated persons should be treated equally in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Point of Law : It is akin to doctrine of benefits and burdens which at its most basic level provides that a person taking advantage under an instrument which both grants a benefit and imposes a burde....
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.