Case Note & Summary
This matter arose from two appeals by the State of Manipur against judgments of the Gauhati High Court dated June 29, 1995, in Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993 and Civil Rule No. 936 of 1993. The High Court had allowed writ petitions filed by the dependents of deceased work-charged employees and directed the State to consider them for compassionate appointment under the Dies-in-Harness Scheme. The respondents were Thingujam Brojen Meetai, son of late Th. Amujao Singh, a work-charged Truck Driver, and Smt. L. Ongbi Sanyaima Devi, wife of late L. Kumar Singh, a work-charged Handyman. Both deceased employees had been appointed in 1978 and later confirmed with retrospective effect; they died in 1991 and 1992 respectively. The State contested the High Court's directions on the ground that the Scheme did not apply to work-charged employees. The original Office Memorandum dated May 2, 1984, had included such dependents, but a corrigendum dated May 8, 1984 substituted paragraph (3) to limit the Scheme to regular Government employees. The revised Scheme of August 31, 1992 expressly excluded ad hoc, officiating, work-charged, casual, and muster roll appointees. The High Court, relying on its earlier decision in N. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur, had held that confirmation of a work-charged employee changed the character of appointment and brought such employees within the Scheme. It also treated the dismissal of the State's special leave petition against that decision by the Supreme Court as binding under Article 141. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that confirmation of a work-charged employee under the Terminal Benefits for Work Charged Staff of P.W.D./IPC/PHE/M.I./Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978 only entitled the employee to certain benefits like pension and gratuity under Rule 6, but did not convert him into a regular employee; he continued to be work-charged. Therefore, the express bar in the revised Scheme applied. On the procedural point, the Court reiterated that dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 and does not amount to affirmation of the High Court's decision. Citing M/s Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, Late Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, and Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India, the Court held that such dismissal only means that the case was not fit for grant of special leave. Consequently, the High Court erred in treating it as binding. The Supreme Court allowed both appeals, set aside the High Court judgments, and dismissed the writ petitions. It made no order as to costs and directed that the amount deposited by the State under its earlier order be retained by the respondent in SLP(C) No. 20376 of 1995.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Dies-in-Harness Scheme - Government of Manipur Office Memoranda dated May 2, 1984, May 8, 1984, and August 31, 1992 - The original Scheme included dependents of work-charged employees but the corrigendum restricted it to regular Government employees and the revised Scheme expressly excluded ad hoc/officiating/work-charged/casual/muster roll appointees. The Court held that dependents of work-charged employees, even if confirmed, are not entitled to compassionate appointment because the bar on work-charged employees remains. (Paras 1-4) B) Service Law - Status of Work-Charged Employees - Confirmation under Terminal Benefits for Work Charged Staff of P.W.D./IPC/PHE/M.I./Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978, Rule 6 - Confirmation of a work-charged employee does not change his character as work-charged; he continues to be a work-charged employee and only becomes entitled to certain terminal benefits like pension and gratuity under Rule 6. Thus the bar on applicability of the Scheme to work-charged employees continues. Held that the High Court's view that confirmation changes character of appointment is incorrect. (Paras 1-4) C) Constitutional Law - Precedent - Article 141, Constitution of India - Dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not amount to acceptance of correctness of the decision and does not constitute law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141. Such dismissal only means that the case was not fit for grant of special leave. The Court relied on M/s Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Late Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, and Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India. Held that the High Court erred in treating the dismissal as binding. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether dependents of confirmed work-charged employees are entitled to compassionate appointment under the Dies-in-Harness Scheme; and whether dismissal of a special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order amounts to acceptance of the High Court's decision under Article 141 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. The judgments of the Gauhati High Court dated June 29, 1995 in Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993 and Civil Rule No. 936 of 1993 set aside. Writ petitions filed by respondents dismissed. No order as to costs. Amount deposited by State under order dated September 22, 1995 shall be retained by respondent in SLP(C) No. 20376 of 1995.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment under Dies-in-Harness Scheme is only for regular government employees
- work-charged employees expressly excluded by revised Scheme
- confirmation of work-charged employee under Terminal Benefits Rules does not change status to regular employee
- dismissal of special leave petition in limine by non-speaking order does not constitute law declared under Article 141 of Constitution
- non-speaking dismissal of SLP does not amount to acceptance of correctness of High Court decision
- High Court erred in treating dismissal of SLP as binding precedent
