MAIBAMDHANANJOY SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Shri Koteswaf, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Nimai Chand, learned Advocate for the respondents. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 1.2.2000 and it was made returnable within three weeks. Be that as it may till today no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. No record has been produced. I feel that this matter can be disposed of.

(2.) The petitioner herein originally joined as Extension Officer and was subsequently promoted in the year 1978 as Assistant Director of Industries (Chemical) and also held the equivalent post of Development Officer (DIC). Thereafter the petitioner was appointed as Functional Manager (Credit). The petitioner was regularised to the post of Functional Manager (Credit) with effect from 24.5.86. The petitioner claims that he is eligible to be promoted as General Manager (DIC). The petitioner was appointed as General Manager (DIC) on in-charge basis for a brief period of 10 (ten) months. Thereafter the petitioner was again appointed as General Manager (Credit), Thoubal by order dated 11.1.96. The petitioner is working in that capacity till today. His only grievance is that he has not been paid the salary and allowances for the post of General Manager (DIC), the post which the petitioner is holding on In-charge basis till today. This matter is covered by recent decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2909 (Secretary-cum- Chief Engineer, Chandigarh, Appellant -vs- Hari Om Sharma & Ors., Respondents) wherein the Supreme Court pointed out that a person so promoted is entitled to the salary of the promotional post and to be considered for regular promotion. Agreement that he would not claim higher salary on being promoted by stop gap arrangement is not valid and unenforceable under S.23 of the Contract Act. Accordingly I dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall be paid the salary of the post of which he was promoted on In-charge basis from 10.1.96.

(3.) It is needles to say that as because he is holding the post on In-charge basis, so he will not be entitled to be regularised. His case for regularisation shall be considered by the authority along with other similarly situated parsons.