SC Upholds Order Directing State To Pay Lawful Dues To Veterinarians, Grants 6 Months Considering Prevalent Conditions In Manipur

The Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition has refused to interfere with an impugned order of the Manipur High Court directing the State to pay lawful dues to the Veterinarians for utilizing their services during the mentioned time. In the matter, the division bench of the Manipur High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge bench as being justified and valid. The bench had observed that the State cannot be permitted to exploit the respondents (original petitioners) by denying them their lawful dues.

Pertinently, the Apex Court considering the prevalent tensed circumstances in the State of Manipur granted 6 months time to the State to pay the dues.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan while refusing to interfere with the impugned order and dismissing the Special leave petition observed, “However, in the peculiar situation as prevalent in the State of Manipur, we observe that the directions as issued by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench be now carry out by the State within the period of six months”.

AOR  Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar appeared for the petitioners and Advocate L.K. Paonam appeared for the respondents.

In the present matter, the State of Manipur & its Director of Veterinary and animal Husbandry Services preferred an appeal before the division bench of the High Court, aggrieved by an order dated November 4, 2015, passed by a Single Judge Bench with certain directions.

The division bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Justice Lanusungkum Jamir after perusing the order under appeal observed that it was practically a consent order, where the Government Advocate, appearing for the State authorities, had submitted that she had no objection to the case being disposed of in terms of the earlier order dated January 19, 2015. Therefore, the State had no right to assail the said consent order. Further the order which was under appeal before it merely directed the authorities to verify whether the respondents - the original petitioners, had worked during the periods in question and if so, to calculate their entitlement for salaries and allowances and pay the same accordingly. “The appellants can have no valid grievance with regard to the aforestated direction as it was incumbent upon them to adequately recompense the respondents/writ petitioners for the services rendered by them, if any, during the periods in question”, the bench noted in the order.

However, the counsel again submitted that one relevant aspect was not brought to the notice before where all the respondents had furnished undertakings in the year 2013 that they would not seek payment of salaries and allowances for the services rendered by them.

To that the bench in the impugned order noted that after the perusal of the undertakings in question the said contention was not supported. “For instance, the undertaking furnished on 21.11.2013 by Dr. Chirom Nishita Devi, the first respondent/first writ petitioner, reads to the effect that she had been attending office and had rendered service as a Veterinary Officer since 23.03.2006 and that, in the event of regularization of her service as MVS Grade – IV (Veterinary Officer), she would abide by the procedures adopted by the Screening Committee and would not claim any liability. The undertakings given by the other respondents/writ petitioners are on identical lines. By no stretch of imagination, do these undertakings lend themselves to the interpretation sought to be placed upon them by the learned Government Advocate. The statement therein that the employee concerned would not claim any liability has to be read in the context of the undertaking that he/she would abide by the procedures adopted by the Screening Committee and nothing more. There is no clear and manifest undertaking to the effect that the employee concerned would forego the salaries for the period during which he/she rendered services earlier”, the bench noted. 

“…it is not open to the appellants, being a welfare State and in consequence, a model employer, to utilize the services of an employee and thereafter seek to deny him/her the just benefits thereof. Be it noted that the periods in question cover several years and the appellants cannot be permitted to exploit the respondents/writ petitioners by denying them their lawful dues if their services were utilized during that time. Therefore, even on merits, the order of the learned Judge was fully justified and valid”, the bench had further noted in the impugned order.

Cause Title: The State Of Manipur & Anr. v. Chirom Nishita Devi & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order