STATE OF MANIPURversusTHINGUJAM BROJEN MEETI

A                          STATE OF MANIPUR
                                   v.
                        THINGUJAM BROJEN MEET!                                   -
                                  MAY 10, 1996

B                (S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVAT!, 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 Work-
    charged employees-Hence, their dependents not entitled to benefits of com-
    passionate 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 express-
    ly 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
                                                                               B
      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 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 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 ap-
plicability 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]
                                                                               E
      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.              H
    740                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

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.
D         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 govern-
    ment 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
F            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:
G            "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 appoi~tment 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.

                                                                                    B
                 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 Govern-
             ment 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/of-     c
             ficiating/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 work-
     charged 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 work-
    charged employee is charged. It appears that S.L.P. (Civil) No. 285 of 1993
    filed against the said decision of the High Court was dismissed in limine
B   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 work·charged Handyman with the Government of
    Manipur. L. Kumar Singh was appointed as work- charged 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/of-
  ficiating/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
                                                                         B
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-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   c
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
    744                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

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.