HC rules against service extension
Source: The Sangai Express
Imphal, February 14 2015 :
In a judgement delivered by the High Court of Manipur on February 3, Justice N Koti-swar Singh has reiterated the illegality of service extension of Government servants who have retired from service on superannuation.
The judgement is said to have a wide ramification on the policy of the Government of Manipur regarding the extension/re-engagement of retired persons on substantive posts.
While quashing the extension/re-engagement of N Ra- jen Singh, Executive Engineer (Electrical), Electrical Division No II, PWD, Mani-pur, who retired on superannuation on Feb 28, 2014, the Court remarked that such extension/re-engagement of a retired person on a substantive post is against Fun- damental Rule 56 (d) which clearly provides that "no Government servant shall be granted extension in service beyond the age of retirement of sixty years" .
In the absence of any other rule enabling the State Government to re-engage a retired Government servant on contract basis and also in view of the fact that the case of N Rajen Singh does not fall under any of the categories of employees excepted in FR 56 (d), the Court is not inclined to uphold the decision of the Government to re-engage ser-vices of N Rajen Singh, according to a statement issued by the Manipur PWD Electrical Engineer's Association Imphal.
In an earlier decision dated Sept 2, 2014 delivered by the Chief Justice LK Mohapatra in Writ Petition (Civil) No 295 of 2014 (Dr K Rajo Singh vs State of Manipur & 2 Ors), the High Court had ruled against such service extensions of Government em- ployees on retirement on superannuation.
Sources also said that there are still a number of such kind of extensions/re-engagements of retired persons in various Departments of Manipur.
At the same time, the Manipur PWD Electrical Engineer's Association Imphal, in the statement, expressed its gratitude over the delivery of such judgements in public interest.
However, the judgement would have been more effective and enforceable, had it been delivered a little earlier.
However, the judgement would have been effective and justifiable, had it been delivered a little earlier, it said in the statement.
The judgement delivered on a petition filed by some Engineers of PWD was represented by Dr RK Deepak Singh, Advocate, the petitioner's counsel.