Writ Appeal No. 79 of 2008. Case: M. Chandramani Singh Vs The State of Manipur and Ors.. Manipur High Court
| Case Number | Writ Appeal No. 79 of 2008 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S. Samarjtee, Advocate and For Respondents: R.S. Reisang, Sr. G.A. |
| Judges | Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, C.J. and N. Kotiswar Singh, J. |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | February 09, 2017 |
| Court | Manipur High Court |
Judgment:
Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, C.J.
-
Before we proceed further in the matter the order which was recorded on 07.2.2017 needs to be reproduced which is hereunder:
The case of the writ petitioner-appellant is that the appellant was appointed as MCS Grade-II on ad hoc basis on 04.12.1990. Later on, his services were regularised on the said post of MCS Grade-II on 19.03.1996. In terms of the Rule stipulating therein that one is eligible to be promoted to MCS Grade-I only on completion of six years of regular service in MCS Grade-II, the appellant was given promotion to MCS Grade-I on 03.08.2000 taking into account even the period of ad hoc service as regular service as had that period of ad hoc service been not taken as regular service, the appellant could have been promoted only in the year 2002. In such event, the appellant completed 13 years of service in the year 2003. When the petitioner-appellant completed 5 years in Grade-II he became eligible to be promoted to Junior Administrative Grade in the year 2005. In spite of fulfilling the eligibility for being promoted to the post of Junior Administrative Grade when the appellant was not promoted to the said post, he approached to this Court for a direction to the authority to consider the case of promotion of the appellant by taking a plea that his 13 years of service should be taken into account from 04.12.1990 when the petitioner had been appointed on MCS Grade-II on ad hoc basis as subsequently, it had been treated to be a regular service but the Court did not accept the plea of the petitioner-appellant rather passed an order to the effect that 13 years of service would be taken into account only from 19.03.1996. That order is being assailed on the ground that once the period of ad hoc service was taken into account as regular service for giving promotion from MCS Grade-II to Grade-I the authority now cannot be allowed to take a plea that period of ad hoc service cannot be taken to be period of regular service but the learned Single Judge failed to take into account this aspect of the matter in right perspective. However, it was placed before us that during pendency of this application, the appellant got retired in the year 2013 but before he got retired he was given promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Grade but presently it is not known as to when the appellant had been given promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Grade and therefore, the case be adjourned to...
To continue reading
Request your trial