http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MANIPUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THINGUJAM BROJEN MEETEIL. ONGBI SAHAYAMIA DEVI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/1996

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                           W I T H                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8228 OF 1996       (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 19612 of 1995)                       J U D G M E N T S.C. AGARWAL, J.      Leave granted      Both these  appeals raise  common questions  elating to appointment  on  compassionate  grounds  under  the  Die-in- Harness Scheme  (for  short  ‘the  Scheme’)  framed  by  the Government of Manipur.      By Office  Memorandum dated  May 2, 1984 the Government of Manipur  issued the  Scheme  for  giving  appointment  to dependents of  government servants  who dies  in harness. In paragraph (3)  of the  Scheme, as  initially framed  it  was provided :      "The  concession  under  the  above      scheme shall  also be applicable to      those dependents  mentioned in  (2)      above  in  respect  of  this  work-      charged  employees   who   died-in-      harness"      By corrigendum  dated May  8,  1984  Office  Memorandum dated May  2,  1984  was  modified  and  paragraph  (3)  was substituted by the following provision :      "The  Scheme  shall  be  applicable      only    to    regular    Government      employees in a vacancy available in      the department  in  which  deceased      employee worked."      Subsequently,  by   Office  Memorandum   dated   August 31,1992, the Scheme was revised and in the revised Scheme it was expressly provided :      "Since the  appointment  under  the      Scheme is  meant  only  for  giving      immediate relief  to  the  bereaved      family, the application complete in      all respect  should be submitted to      the concerned Department within the      one year from the date of expiry of      the deceased Government servant.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    Provided that  the applicant has to      crossed  the   maximum  age   limit      prescribed under  the R.R.  at  the      time when  proposal in its complete      form is submitted to the Government      and the  Government servant  was  a      regular/substantive appointed under      the State  Government on the day of      demise/retired  on  medical  ground      (invalid pension).  The Scheme will      not    be    applicable    to    ad      hoc.officialing/work-      charged/casual/muster          roll      appointees."      For work-charged  employes the  Government Manipur  has framed the  Terminal Benefits  for  work  Charged  Staff  of P.W.D./IPC/PHE/M.I./Electricity,   Manipur Rules,  1978 (for short   ’the Terminal  Benefits Rules’).  Under the Terminal Benefits Rules  permanent work-charged employees are allowed certain benefits in the pattern of C.P.W.D. in the matter of pension, gratuity, retirement, leave, holidays, etc.      Thingujam Brojen Meetai, the respondent in Civil Appeal arising out  of S.L.P.  (Civil) No. 20370 of 1995 is the son of late Th. Amujao Singh, who was employed as a work-charged Truck Driver with the Government of Manipur. Th. amujao Sing was appointed on February 21, 1978 and he expired on January 31, 1992.  After his death, by order dated July 15, 1992, he was confirmed  on the post of work-charged Truck Driver with effect from  October 1,  1990. After the death of Th. amujao Singh, the  respondent sought  appointment under the Scheme. Since he  was not  given an  appointment, he  filed  a  writ petition (Civil  Rule No.  171 of  1993) in the Gauhati High Court seeking  an appropriate  direction for his appointment on compassionate  grounds. The  said writ  petition  of  the respondent has  been allowed  by the  High Court by judgment dated June  29,  1995,  whereby  the  appellants  have  been directed  to   consider  the  case  of  the  respondent  for appointment  to   a  suitable  post  commensurate  with  his educational qualifications  under the Scheme. The submission urged on  behalf of  the appellants  that the Scheme was not applicable since  the father  of the  respondent was a work- charged employee  was not accepted by the High Court and, in this regard,  the High  Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in  N. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur & Ors., [C.R. No.  2978/91/235/91 decided on March 27, 1982] wherein it was  held  that  a  confirmed  work-charged  employee  is entitled to  the benefits  of the  Scheme inasmuch  as after confirmation the  character of appointment of a work-charged employee is  changed. It appears that S.L.P. (Civil) No. 285 of 1993  filed against  the said  decision of the High Court was dismissed  in limine by this court on February 15, 1993. In the  impugned judgment  the High  Court has observed that the matter  has been  finally concluded  by  this  Court  in dismissing the appeal and the said decision of this court is binding under Article 141 of the constitution.      Smt. L.  Ongbi Sanyaima  Devi, the  respondent in Civil Appeal arising  out of  S.L.P. (Civil) No. 19612 of 1995, is the wife  of late  L. Kumar  Singh who was employed as work- charged Handyman  with the  Government of  Manipur. L. Kumar Singh was  appointed as  work-charged Handyman  with  effect from February  21, 1978  and he continued in such employment till he died on August 4, 1991. He was confirmed on the post of work-charged  Handyman with  effect from  March 1,  1987. After  the  death  of  her  husband,  the  respondent  sough appointment under  the  Scheme.  Since  she  was  not  given

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

appointment, she  moved the  Gauhati High  Court by filing a writ petition  (Civil Rule  No. 936  of 1993) which has been allowed by  the High  court by  judgment dated June 29, 1995 for the  same reasons as in the judgment referred to earlier in Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993.      As noticed  earlier, in the Scheme, as initially framed by O.M.  dated  May  2,  1984,  there  was  a  provision  in paragraph (3)  for appointment of dependents of work-charged employees who  died in harness. But by corrigendum dated May 8, 1984,  the Office  Memorandum  dated  May  12,  1984  was amended and paragraph (3) was substituted and in the amended provision  it   was  provided   that  the  Scheme  shall  be applicable to  regular government  employee in  the  vacancy available in  the department  in which the deceased employee worked. The matter was further clarified beyond doubt in the revised scheme  issued by O.M. dated August 31, 1992 wherein it  is   expressly  stated  that  the  Scheme  will  not  be applicable to  ad  hoc/officiating/work-charge/casual/master roll appointees. We are unable to agree with the view of the High Court  in N. Arun Kumar Singh v. The state of Manipur & Ors. (supra)  that a change come about in the character of a work-charged employee  after confirmation  and the Scheme is applicable to  him. In  our view,  the only  change that  is brought about  as a result of confirmation of a work-charged employee is  that, by virtue of the Terminal Benefits Rules, a confirmed  work-charged employee  is entitled  to  certain benefits including  pension and gratuity under Rule 6 of the Terminal Benefits  Rules which  benefits he  would otherwise have not been entitled to. But a work-charged employee after confirmation does  not cease  to be  a work-charged employee and he  continues to  be a  work-charged employee.  The  bar regarding  applicability   of  the  Scheme  to  work-charged employee would, therefore, continue to be applicable and the dependents of  such a confirmed work-charged employee cannot claim the  benefit of  an appointment  on the  basis of  the Scheme.      It is no doubt true that Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 285  of 1993  filed by  the State of Manipur against the decision of  the High  Court in  N. Arun  Kumar Singh v. The State of  Manipur & Ors. (supra) was dismissed by this Court by order  dated February  15, 1993.  The said  special leave petition  was,   however,  dismissed   in   limine   without expressing  any  opinion  on  the  merits  of  the  impugned judgment. The  dismissal of  a special  leave petition  by a non-speaking order  which does  not contain  the reasons for dismissal does  not amount  to acceptance of the correctness of the decision sought to be appealed against. The effect of such a non-speaking order of dismissal without anything more only means that this court has decided only that it is not a fit case where the special leave petition should be granted. Such an  order does  not constitute  law laid  down by  this court for  the purpose  of Article  141 of the Constitution. [See: M/s Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1989 92)  SCC   356;  Late  Nawab  sir  Mir  Osman  Ali  Khan  v. commissioner of  wealth Tax,  Hyderabad, 1986 Supp. SCC 700, and Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India, 1989  (4) SCC  187]. The High Court was, therefore in error in  holding  that  by  dismissing  the  special  leave petition against  the judgment in N. Arun Kumar Singh v. The State of  Manipur & Ors. (supra) this Court has affirmed the said decision  of the  High Court  and the said view of this Court is binding under Articles 141 of the constitution.      For the  reasons aforementioned  the judgments  of  The High Court  under challenge  in both  the appeals whereby it has been  held that  the  respondents  are  entitled  to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

considered for appointment on the basis of the Scheme cannot be sustained  and have  to be  set aside.  The appeals  are, there-fore, allowed,  the impugned  judgments  of  the  High Court dated  June 29  1995 in Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993 and Civil Rule  No. 936 of 1993 are set aside and the  said writ petition filed by the respondents are dismissed. No costs.      By order  dated September  22, 1995,  this Court, while directing that  notice be  issued to  the respondent Special Leave petition  (Civil) No. 20376 of 1995, also directed the petitioners to  deposit for  contesting this  petition.  The said amount  had been deposited and has been permitted to be withdrawn by  the respondent  in the  said matter.  The said amount shall be retained by him.