In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant State submitted that the respondents father died on 19.7.1980.
The State of Manipur is in appeal.
Admittedly, the respondents father died before the Office Memorandum came into operation.
The State resisted the claim on the ground that number only was the claim belated but also in view of the ben imposed on appointments, the question of making any appointment did number arise.
2003 Supp 3 SCR 107 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court found that after having issued the letter in 1999, the belated approach by the respondent cannot be a ground for denying appointment under die in harness scheme and direction was given to the State to forthwith appoint the respondent.
A writ petition W.P. C No.
The scheme itself provides the time period within which an application has to be filed.
Further the letter issued was inconsequential as there was a clear stipulation in the scheme itself about companycurrence of Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Personnel Division .
Appeal by the State before the Division Bench suffered dismissal.
1202/2001 was filed in the year 2001 by the respondent who pleaded that he was initially offered Grade IV post by order dated 15.12.1999 but numberappointment was made.
The respondent applied for a post on 25.7.1997.
Finding on other alternative the respondent who was a minor at the time of his fathers death applied afresh and State cannot take plea that the benefit canot be extended.
Respondents father died in harness on 19.7.1980.
The letter dated 15.12.1999 does number companyfer any right on the respondent as the scheme itself provided that the appointment will be made by the appointing authority companycerned after clearance from Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Personnel Division .
There is practically numbercontroversy so far as the factual aspects are companycerned and, therefore, need to be numbered in brief.
The writ application was filed for direction to the companycerned authorities for giving appointment under the die in harness scheme.
Respondent was found to be entitled for appointment under the die in hamess scheme, by a learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court at Imphal Bench, whose view was endorsed by the Division Bench.
