STATE OF MANIPUR

THINGUJAM BROJEN MEET!

MAY 10, 1996

(S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.]

Labour Law:

Compassionate appointment-Die-in-Hamess Schem&-Dependents of C confinned Work-charged employees-Compassionate appointment-Refusal of-Held : character of a Work-charged employee did not change after confinnati01>-Revised Scheme not applicable to such confinned Workcharged employees-Hence, their dependents not entitled to benefits of compassionate appointment-Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Staff of PWD!IPC!PHE/Ml/Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978, Rule 6.

D Constitution of India, 1950: A1tic/e 141.

Dismissal of SLP by non-speaking orde1--Held : did not amount to acceptance of correctness of bnpugned decision-Hence, did not constitute E law laid down by Supreme Court.

The appellant-State issued a Scheme for giving appointment to dependents of government servants under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. The Scheme was subsequently revised and in the revised Scheme it was expressly stated that the Scheme would not be applicable to work-charged F employees. However, confirmed work-charged employees were entitled to certain benefits including pension and gratuity under Rule 6 of Terminal Benefits for Work Charged Staff of PWD/IPC/PHE/Ml/Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978.

The respondents were dependents of confirmed work-charged G employees of the appellant-State who died in harness. After their death, the respondents sought appointment under the Scheme. Since they were not given appointment on compassionate grounds they filed writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petitions following its earlier judgment that a change came about in the character of a work- H charged employee after confirmation and, therefore, the Scheme was ap- 738

STATE v. THINGUJAM BROJEN MEET! 739

plicable to him. The Special Leave Petition filed against the said earlier A judgment of the High Court was dismissed by this Court in limine. The High Court had observed that dismissal of the SLP constituted law laid down by this Court and was binding under Article 141 of the Constitution.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. The High Court erred in holding that a change comes about in the character of a work-charged employee after confirmation and the Scheme is applicable to him. TI1e only change that is brought about as a result of confirmation of a work-charged employee is that, by virtue

of the Terminal Benefits for Works Charged Staff of C PWD/IPC/PHE/Ml/Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978, a confirmed workcharged employee is entitled to certain benefits including pension and gratuity under Rule 6 of the Terminal Benefits Rules which benefits he would otherwise have not been entitled to. But a work-charged employ after confirmation does not cease to be a work-charged employee and D he continues to be a work-charged employee. The bar regarding applicability of the Scheme to work-charged employee would, therefore, continue to be applicable and the dependents of such a confirmed work-charged employee cannot claim the benefit of con1passionate on the basis of the Scheme. [742-H; 743-A-B]

N. AIUn Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur, C.Rs. Nos. 2978 of 1991 and 235 of 1991, decided by the Assam High Court on 27.3.1982, overruled.

2. The dismissal of a special leave petition by a non.speaking order \Vhich does not contain the reasons for dismissal does not amount to F acceptance of the correctness of the decision sought to be appealed against.

The effect of such a non-speaking order of dismissal without anything more means that this Court has decided only that it is not a fit case where the special leave petition should be granted. Such an order does not constitute law laid down by this Court for the purpose of Article 141 of the Constitution. [743-D-E] G

M/s. Rup Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] 2 SCC 356; Late Nawab Sir Mir Osnian Ali Khan v. Conunissioner of Wealth TCLt, Hyderabad, [1986] Supp. SCC 700 and Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, [1989] 4 sec 187, relied on.

A N. Arnn Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur, CRs. Nos. 2978 of 1991 and 235 of 1991, decided by the Assam High Court on 27.3.1982, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8226 of 1996 Etc.

B From the Judgment and Order dated 29.6.95 of the Assam High Court in C.R. No 171 of 1993.

Ms. S Janani for the Appellants.

B.P. Sahu, Ms Rajivi K. Prasad and K.R. Nagaraja for the Respon- C dents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.

Both these appeals raise common questions relating lo appointment on compassionate grounds under the Die-in-Harness Scheme (for short 'the Scheme') framed by the Government of Manipur.

By Office Memorandum dated May 2, 1984 the Government of E Manipur issued Scheme for giving appointment to dependents of government servants who died in harness. In paragraph (3) of the Scheme, as initially framed, it was provided :

"The concession under the above Scheme shall also be applicable to those dependents mentioned in (2) above in respect of those work-charged employees who died-in harness".

By corrigendum dated May 8, 1984 Office Memorandum dated May i, 1984 was modified and paragraph (3) was substituted by the following provision:

"The Scheme shall be applicable only to regular Government employees in a vacancy available in the department in which the deceased employee worked."

Subsequently, by Office Memorandum dated August 31, 1992, the H Scheme was revised and in the revised Scheme it was expressly provided :

STATE v. THINGUJAM BROJEN MEET! (S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 741

"Since the appoitment under the Scheme is meant only for giving A immediate relief to the bereaved family, the application complete in all respect should be submitted to the concerned Department within the one year from the date of expiry of the deceased Government servant.

Provided that the applicant has not crossed the maximum age limit prescribed under the R.R. at the time when proposal in its complete from is submitted to the Government and the Government servant was a regular/substantive appointed under the State Government on the day of demise/retired on medical ground (invalid pension). The Scheme will not be applicable to ad hoc/officiating/work-charge/causal/muster roll appointees."

For work-charged employees the Government of Manipur has framed the Terminal Benefits for Work Charged Staff of P.W.D./IPC PHE/M.1./Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978 (for short 'the Terminal D Benefits Rules'). Under the Terminal Benefits Rules permanent workcharged employees are allowed certain benefits in the pattern of C.P.W.D. in the matter of pension, gratuity, retirement, leave, holidays, etc.

Thingujam Brojen Meetai, the respondent in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20376 of 1995 is the son the late Th. Amujao Singh, E who was employed as a work-charged Truck Driver with the Government of Manipur. Th. Amujao Singh was appointed on February 21, 1978 and he expired on January 31, 1992. After his death, by order dated. July 15, 1992, he was confirmed on the post of work-charged Truck Driver with effect from October 1, 1990. After the death of Th. Amujao Singh, the F respondent sought appointment under the Scheme. Since he was not given an appointment, he filed a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993) in the Gauhati High Court seeking an appropriate direction for his appointment on compassionate grounds. The said writ petition of the respondent has been allowed by the High Court by judgment dated June 29, 1995, whereby the appellants have been directed to consider the case of the respondent G for appointment to a suitable post commensurate with his educational qualifications under the Scheme. The submission urged on behalf of the appellants that the Scheme was not applicable since the father of the respondent was a work-charged employee was not accepted by the High Court and, in this regard, the High Court placed reliance on its earlier H

742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996J SlJPP. 2 S.C.R.

A judgment in N. Arnn Kumar Sin1/!1 v. State of Manipur & Q,,·., (C.R. No. 2978/91/235/91 decided on March 27, 1982) wherein it was held that a confirmed work charged employee is entitled to the benefits of the Scheme inasmuch as after confirmation the character of appointment of a workcharged employee is charged. It appears that S.L.P. (Civil) No. 285 of 1993

B filed against the said decision of the High Court was dismissed in limine by this Court on February 15, 1993. In the impugned judgment the High Court has observed that the matter has been finally concluded by this Court in dismissing the appeal and the said decision of this Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution.

C Smt. L Ongbi Sanyaima Devi, the respondent in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Chil) No. 19612 of 1995, is the wife of late L. Kumar Singh Who was employed as workcharged Handyman with the Government of Manipur. L. Kumar Singh was appointed as workcharged Handyman with effect from February 21, 1978 and he continued in such employment till he D died on August 4, 1991. He was confirmed on the post of work-charged Handyman with effect from March 1, 1987. After the death of her husband, the respondent sought appointment under the Scheme. Since she was not given appointment, she moved the Gauhati High Court by filing a writ petition (Civil Rule No. 936 of 1993) which has been allowed by the High

Court by judgment dated June 29, 1995 for the same reasons as in the E judgment referred to earlier in Civil Rule No. 171 of 1993.

As noticed earlier, in the Scheme, as initially framed by O.M. dated May 2, 1984, there was a provision in paragraph (3) for appointment of dependents of work-charged employees who died in harness. But by cor- F rigendum dated May 8, 1984, the Office Memorandum dated May 2, 1984 was amended and paragraph (3) was substituted and in the amended provision it was provided that the Scheme shall be applicable to regular government employee in the vecancy available in the department in which the deceased employee worked. The matter was further clarified beyond doubt in the revised scheme issued by O.M. dated August 31, 1992 wherein G it is expressly stated that the scheme will not be applicable to ad lloc/officiating/work-chargeicasuaVmoster roll appointees. We are unable to agree with the view of the High Court in N. A11111 Kumar Singh v. The State of Manipur & Ors., (supra) that a change comes about in the character of

a work-charged employee after confirmation and the Scheme is applicable H to him. In our view, the only change that is brought about as a result of

STATE v. THINGUJAM BROJEN MEETI[S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 743

confirmation of work-charged employee is that, by virtue of the Terminal A Benefits Rules, a confirmed work-charged employee is entitled to certain benefits including pension and gratuity under Rule 6 of the Terminal Benefits Rules which benefits he would otherwise have not been entitled to. But a work-charged employee after confirmation does not cease to be a work-charged employee and he continues to be a work-charged employee. The bar regarding applicability of the Scheme to workcharged employee would, therefore, continue to be applicable and the dependents of such a confirmed work-charge employee cannot claim the benefit of an appointment on the basis of the Scheme.

It is no doubt true that Special Leave Petition (Ci'"!) No. 285 of 1993 filed by the State of Manipur against the decision of the High Court in a N. Antn Kumar Singh v. 17ie State of Manipur or Ors.,. (supra) was dismissed by this Court by order dated February 15, 1993. The said special leave petition was, however, dismissed in li111ine without expressing any opinion

on the merits of the impugned judgment. The dismissal of a special leave D petition by a non-speaking order which does not contain the reasons for dismissal does not amount to acceptance of the correctness of the decision sought to be appealed against. The effect of such a non-speaking order of dismissal without an)1hing more only means that this Court has decided only that it is not a fit case where the special leave petition should be granted. Such an order does not constitute law laid down by this Court for E the purpose of Article 141 of the Constitution. (See : Mis. Rup Diamonds & 01~. v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] 2 SCC 356; Late Nawab Sir Mir

Osman Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Hyderabad, [1986] Supp.

SCC 700, and Supreme Cowt Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India, [1989] 4 SCC 187). The High Court was, therefore, in error in F holding that by dismissing the special leave petition against the judgment in N. Anm Kumar Singh v. The State cf Manipur & Ors., (supra) this Court has affirmed the said decision of the High Court and the said view of this Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution.

For the reasons aforementioned the judgments of the High Court G under challenge in both the appeals whereby it has been held that the respondents are entitled to be considered for appointment on the basis .of the Scheme cannot be sustained and have to be set aside. The appeals are, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgments of the High Court dated June 29, 1995 in Civil Rule No. 171of1993 and Civil Rule No. 936 of 1993 are H

A set aside and the said writ petition filed by the respondents are dismissed.

No costs.

By order dated September 22, 1995, this Court, while directing that notice be issued to the respondent in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20376 of 1995, also directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,000 B towards the cost of the respondent for contesting this petition. The said amount had been deposited and has been permitted to be withdrawn by respondent in the said matter. The said amount shall be retained by him.

v.s.s.

Appeal allowed.