SENJAM BIMOLA DEVI, W/O M NANGISHWOR SINGH OF KHUYATHONG POLEM LEIKAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA; CENTRAL SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD, NEW DELHI; MANIPUR STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD, IMPHAL; STATE OF MANIPUR; DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, MANIPUR, IMPHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ng. Jotindra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri Y. Nirmolchand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5, Shri S. Rupachandra, the learned ASG appearing for the respondent No.1 and Smt. Th. Sobhana, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4.

(2.) In the instant writ petition, there are as many as six prayers but during the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined to prayer (i) being the prayer for direction to the respondents to count the past service of the petitioner as qualifying service, for the period from 24-10-1985 till 01-03-2013, for purpose of pensionary benefits and other retirement benefits.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the Chairman, Manipur State Social Welfare Board issued an Advertisement dated 01-10-1985 inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for appointment of a Clerk-cum-Typist and in response thereto, she applied for it. On the recommendation of an Interview Board, the petitioner was appointed temporarily as Clerk-cum-Typist for a period of three months on a consolidated pay of Rs. 500/- vide order dated 24-10-1985 and her service was extended from time to time till 01-03-2013 when she was appointed on regular basis. But the grievance of the petitioner is that the past service rendered by her was not counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary and other monitory benefits. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner submitted representations through proper channel with the prayer that the period of her past service rendered by the petitioner from 18-10-1985 till 01-03-2013 be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and also to give other financial benefits from the financial year, 1999. Since no action was taken by the respondents on the said representations, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.