THIYAM KATON SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioners, three in number, who were holding the substantive posts of Jilladars in the Revenue Department of the Government of Manipur were allowed to function as Revenue inspectors on in-charge basis by an order dated 19th January, 1996 (Annexure-A/3). The Writ Petitioners who rendered services as Revenue inspectors claimed the benefit of pay and allowances attached to the post of Revenue inspectors and the same having been denied by the authority, the instant writ Application has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on an order dated 12 .2.2001 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1278/2000 to contend that similar relief has been granted by this Court to employees who were more or less similarly situated with the present writ petitioners. I have perused the aforesaid order dated 12.2.2001 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1278/2000. This Court while rendering the aforesaid order had relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Selva Raj, Appellant v. Lt. Governor of Island Port Blair and Ors., Respondents reported in AIR 1999 SC 838. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, which has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner would go to show that the grant of relief by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case was primarily due to the fact that the order allowing the concerned incumbent to hold the higher post on in-charge basis contained a clear stipulation that the concerned incumbent would be entitled to the pay of the higher post. In the present case, in the order dated 19th January, 1996 (Annexure-A/3) it has been expressly stated that the writ Petitioners will draw the pay of the substantive posts of Jilladars. The ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case would not therefore apply to the facts of the present case.