Court orders payment of MHRC chairperson's salary
Source: Chronicle News Service
Imphal, May 23 2024:
The High Court of Manipur has issued a directive to the state government to remunerate a member of the Manipur Human Rights Commission (MHRC) with the salary of the chairperson.
The ruling stemmed from a writ petition filed by Khaidem Mani, who served as a member of the MHRC and fulfilled the duties of the chairperson for four years.
Despite acting in the capacity of the chairperson, Khaidem Mani was denied the full salary commensurate with the position.
The petitioner contended that his tenure as acting chairperson entailed responsibilities and duties equivalent to those of the chairperson, yet he was not compensated accordingly.
Khaidem Mani, appearing in person, argued that the absence of explicit provisions in the MHRC rules regarding remuneration for acting chairpersons should not preclude him from receiving the salary entitlements associated with the position.
After perusing the petitioner's arguments, along with submissions from the state government's representatives, the High Court emphasised the principles of equality and fairness, drawing on legal precedents that uphold the entitlement of individuals who perform the functions of a higher post for an extended duration to receive commensurate compensation.
In its judgment, the High Court cited the case of Randhir Singh vs Union of India, and Arindam Chattopadhyay vs State of WB, underscoring the applicability of these precedents to the present case.
The court held that the petitioner's prolonged service in the role of acting chairperson warranted compensation at the salary level of the chairperson, in accordance with the provisions of the MHRC rules and amendments.
Furthermore, the court dismissed objections raised by the state government regarding non-joinder of necessary parties and asserted that the finance department's concurrence was not essential for matters pertaining to MHRC remuneration.
The judgment clarified that the MHRC itself had advocated for the petitioner's cause, demonstrating the absence of any adverse impact on the state's finances.
In light of these considerations, the High Court directed the state government to remunerate the petitioner with the salary differential between the chairperson and member roles.
Additionally, the court mandated the issuance of a new salary slip reflecting the revised compensation within a month, and disposed of the case.