TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Affirms Seniority Rules in Manipur Police Service Cadre Dispute</h1> <h3>K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH AND ORS. Versus NINGAM SIRO AND ORS.</h3> K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH AND ORS. Versus NINGAM SIRO AND ORS. - (2020) 5 SCC 689 Issues Involved:1. Inter-se seniority dispute between promotees and direct recruits in the Manipur Police Service Grade II Cadre.2. Interpretation of the term 'year' in the context of seniority.3. Applicability of the N.R. Parmar judgment to the present case.4. Validity of the seniority list prepared by the State Government.5. Compliance with High Court orders regarding seniority.Detailed Analysis:1. Inter-se Seniority Dispute:The dispute revolves around the seniority between promotees and direct recruits in the MPS Grade II Cadre. Promotees argued that they should be considered senior as they were inducted on 01.03.2007, before the direct recruits who were appointed on 14.08.2007 and 24.11.2007. The direct recruits contended that seniority should be based on the year of the vacancy, not the date of appointment.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Year':The Single Judge interpreted 'year' to mean the financial year, relying on the Office Memorandum dated 29.04.1999 and the Manipur (SC & ST) Act, 1976. The Division Bench, however, did not delve into this interpretation, focusing instead on the principle that seniority cannot be claimed from a date before actual appointment.3. Applicability of N.R. Parmar Judgment:The direct recruits cited N.R. Parmar to argue that seniority should be based on the year of vacancy. However, the Court found that N.R. Parmar did not apply to the MPS Rules, 1965, which specify that seniority is determined by the date of appointment. The Court noted that N.R. Parmar had incorrectly interpreted relevant Office Memorandums and overruled it, emphasizing that seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the individual was not yet in service.4. Validity of the Seniority List:The seniority list prepared by the State Government on 29.06.2019 was found to be non-compliant with the High Court's orders. The Court emphasized that the list should have been prepared in accordance with the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench, which both concluded that promotees should be senior to direct recruits.5. Compliance with High Court Orders:The State Government was directed to prepare a revised seniority list within eight weeks, following the High Court's directions and the Court's interpretation of the MPS Rules, 1965. The Court stressed that seniority should be based on the date of appointment, not the initiation of the recruitment process.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's orders, directing the State of Manipur to revise the seniority list in the MPS Grade II Cadre, ensuring that promotees are given seniority over direct recruits based on their earlier appointment dates. The decision in N.R. Parmar was overruled, and the Court clarified that seniority should be determined from the date of appointment, not from the date of vacancy or initiation of the recruitment process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
