A.M. Sapre, C.J.@mdashThis is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court for the same relief. The petitioner was an employee of the Manipur Plantation Crops Corporation Ltd. and he was working in the capacity of Head Clerk. He retired on superannuation on 30.11.2001.
2. The Managing Director of the said Corporation passed an order on 17.9.1990 which is quoted below:
ORDERSImphal, the 17th Sept. 1990 No. 140/MPCC/G/83-Pt.II: In pursuance of the Resolution No. 6 of the 24th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 7.9.1990, the Manipur Service (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1989 be and is hereby adopted for similar posts to the employees of Manipur Plantation Crops Corporation Ltd.
Further, the Board resolved that adoption of revision of Pay of Govt. of Manipur services from time to time in toto would be adopted to the employees of the Corporation in public interest.
Sd/- (Kh. Sudhendra Singh)
Managing Director,
Manipur Plantation Crops Corpn. Ltd.
Referring to the said order, it is claimed by the petitioner that Manipur Service (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1999 stands automatically adopted and therefore he is entitled to benefit of the said revision of pay. On this ground alone the earlier writ petition was filed claiming for extension of the benefit of the revision of pay granted to the employees of Govt. of Manipur in pursuance of Manipur Service (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1999. The said writ application was disposed of on 18.4.2006 and following direction was issued:
6. Be that as it may, taking into consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents that the retirement benefits of the petitioner be calculated as per the ROP 1999 and available to him if in case the ROP 1999 is adopted by the Manipur Plantation Crops Corporation Ltd. The respondents are also further directed to release the retirement and other service benefits of the petitioner which he has not yet received as expeditiously as possible but not later than 4(four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order.
3. After disposal of the writ petition, the Managing Director of the Corporation passed another order on 8.2.2007 in Annexure-A/7 clarifying that the Corporation has not issued any order adopting the above revision of pay Rules of 1999. Challenging the said order in Annexure-A/7, this writ application has been filed.
4. Mr. R.K. Nokulsana, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to Annexure-A/2 and submitted that the Corporation was wound up by order dated 19.8.2003 and therefore there was no Managing Director as on 8.2.2007 when the impugned order in Annexure-A/7 was passed. It was further contended that for the above reason, the order passed in Annexure-A/7 is without any authority. It was also further contended by Mr. R.K. Nokulsana, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner that Annexure-A/3 clearly lays down that apart from adoption of Manipur Service (Revision of Pay) Rules 1989 vide resolution No. 6 of the Corporation passed in its 24th Meeting of the Board of Director, further decision was taken to adopt all subsequent revision of pay made by the Government of Manipur and therefore the revision of pay of 1999 stands automatically adopted. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the above revision of pay prescribed under the 1999 rules.
5. It was contended by Mr. N. Surendrajit, learned Advocate for the Corporation as well as Mr. A. Madhuchandra, learned G.A. appearing for the State respondent that so long as ROP 1999 prescribing the pay revision is not adopted by a specific resolution of the Corporation, the same cannot be made effective for the employees of the Corporation. What was resolved in Annexure-A/3 was only an intention to adopt future pay revision but in absence of a specific resolution adopting ROP 1999, the benefits of the same cannot be extended to the employees of the Corporation.
6. The interpretation of Annexure-A/3 appears to have been settled by the Court in the earlier writ petition. On perusal of the order passed in the earlier writ petition which is in Annexure-A/6, it is found that the very plea was taken before the Court and it was submitted that in view of the order dt. 17.9.1990 the ROP 1999 stands automatically adopted by the Corporation. The Court did not accept the above contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the said writ petition and while disposing of the writ petition, directed that the retirement benefits of the petitioner be calculated as per ROP 1999 if the same has been adopted by the Manipur Plantation Corporation Ltd. Therefore, the Court did not accept the submission of the learned counsel that the ROP 1999 stands automatically adopted in view of the order passed in Annexure-A/3 on 17.9.1990. The above issue raised by the learned counsel having already been settled in the earlier writ petition and the Court having not accepted such contention, it is no more open for the petitioner to raise the same issue again. In absence of any specific resolution passed by the Corporation adopting ROP 1999, the benefits under the said ROP cannot be extended to the employees of the Corporation. Accordingly, the writ petitioner has not been extended with the said benefits.
7. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismiss the same.
