It has caused a lot of economic distress amongst the people. This problem has been going on for more than a year. The imposition of President's Rule in July 2001 brought false hope to the public servants for improvement in this regard. But the situation is no different today even when there is President's Rule, which is to continue till the state assembly election in February 2002. 

The society in Manipur has some characteristics. People mostly live in a joint family and the family structure is such that there are less of bread earners and more of dependents in the family. When such a bread earner in the family is a state government employee, then the whole family is dependent upon his/her salary. Most of the salary in used in running the household and meeting the other needs of the large family that there is practically no saving in most of the family. 

Generally, in the locality the shopkeepers (Leikai Dukandar) maintain credit account of the customers and the customers repay them on a monthly basis when the salary is received. But when salaries are due for months, the credits in the shops go so high that the shopkeeper, in order to make his business viable, has to discontinue selling food items to the customers unless they clear their previous credits. Such circumstances give them no other option but to sell off or mortgage hard-earned small assets or borrow money at an exorbitant rate of interest (generally 10% per month). 

It is all the more difficult for those who does not have a saleable or mortgagable assets because they have to beg to the better off family to lend more and more money, with each delay in payment of salary, without security - which is indeed not an easy and pleasing task.

The process of selling, mortgaging and borrowing is not only associated with pain and distress but also with a dent in their dignity. In order to sustain their lives and their families' they have to gulp down their dignity and move ahead. The question I want to pose here is - is this the kind of life guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution? Let us look into Article 21 and its interpretation given by the Supreme Court to arrive at an answer to the question. 

Article 21 of the Constitution enumerates that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty accept according to procedure established by law". The kind of life contemplated in the article can be gathered from the pronouncement of the Supreme Court. The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case is a milestone in the field of Fundamental Rights and the court gave a new dimension to Article 21. 

It held that the right to live is not merely confined to physical existence but includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity. The Supreme Court reiterating the same view but in an elaborate way in Frances Coralie Vs. Union Territory of Delhi, said that "The right to live is not restricted to mere animal existence, it means something more then just physical survival. The right to 'live' is not confined to the protection of any faculty or limb through which life is enjoyed or the soul communication with the outside world but it also includes the right to live with human dignity, and all those that goes with it." 

Following Maneka Gandhi and Francis Coralie, the Supreme Court in People Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Union of India, held that the non-payment of minimum wages to the workers employed in various Asiad projects in Delhi was denial to them of their right to live with basic human dignity and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Further the Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrabhand struck down a provision of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, which provided for payment of only a nominal subsistence allowance of Re 1 per month to a suspended government servant as unconstitutional on the ground that it was violation of Act 21 of the Constitution. 

The various decisions of the highest court of the land enlighten us to the fact that the public servants must not get just the nominal substance allowance per month but should get enough amount to lead a life with human dignity. But in Manipur, there is non-payment of salary by the government since the past three months at a stretch. And the struggle to make ends meet by selling, mortgaging, borrowing little assets at an exorbitant rate of interest & through sympathy cannot be called, by any stretch of imagination, to be living with human dignity. 

Therefore, such act of the state is not in consonance with the fundamental right to life as envisaged in Article 21. Moreover, the state is under a duty, accordingly to Article 43 of the Constitution, to try to secure by suitable legislation or economic organization or in any other way to all workers, agricultural, industrial, or otherwise, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. The living wage envisaged here is much more inclusive than minimum wage. 

In addition to the provisions contained in the Constitution, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, which was ratified by India in 1979, enumerates fair wages, a decent living for themselves and their family, periodic holidays with pay etc. 
The payment of salaries by the government at a later date (generally after 2-3 months) cannot meet the needs of the hour. Moreover, payments of the delayed salaries without any extra benefit along with it will neither compensate the inconvenience nor clear the exorbitant interest of the debts incurred during the non-payment of salary. 

This economic problem is not just confined to the class of govt. employees but has wider ramifications. It has repercussions in the economy of the whole state. In short, the non-payment of salary in time to the state government employees by the state is neither in consonance with the fundamental right laid down in the Constitution nor with the right enumerated in the International Convention to which India is a party. The state should, therefore, strive to relieve the employees by giving them their pay in time thus making them enjoy their fundamental right to life, which is guaranteed by the constitution, in substance. The state should not create situation to turn the self-respecting people of Manipur to begging.

(Courtesy: The Imphal Free Press)