IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 17 of 2023
Shri Laishram Chaobhal Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o (Late) L.
Nila Singh, resident of Awang Jiri, P.O. & P.S. Nambol, District Imphal
West, Manipur.
... Petitioner/s
…
- Versus -
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Commissioner/Secretary
(PHED), Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District
Imphal West, Manipur, (Secretariat Block)-795001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department
(PHED), Government of Manipur, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City Police,
Imphal West District, Manipur, PWD Complex at Khuyathong,
Manipur-795001.
3. The Principal/Special Secretary (Finance), Government of
Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur
(Secretariat Block)-795001.
4. The Joint Secretary (Pension Cell), Government of Manipur, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur (Secretariat Block)-
795001.
5. The Principal Accountant General (A & E), Manipur, Imphal at
Babupara P.O. & P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur-
795001.
........Respondent/s
WP(C) No. 17 of 2023 Page 1
B E F O R E
JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
HON’BLE MR.
For the petitioner :: Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, Adv.
For the respondents :: Mrs. Ch. Sundari, G.A. & Mr. S.
Samarjeet, Sr. PCCG
Date of hearing :: 25.04.2024
Date of Judgment & Order :: 30.04.2024.
JUDGEMENT & ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mrs. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. for the State respondent and Mr.
S. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG for the Principal Accountant General.
[2] The fact in brief leading to the present case is that the petitioner
was initially appointed as Muster Roll worker in the department of PHE,
Government of Manipur. As per the policy framed by the State Government
for Casual/Muster Roll Workers and Work-charged Employees published on
16.04.1997, those Casual/Muster Roll Employees, who had completed 10
would be converted into Work-Charged
years’ service as on 16.04.1997,
establishment and those Work-charged Employees, who had completed 10
years as on 16.04.1997, would be converted into regular Employees. In
terms of the said policy, the PHE, Government of Manipur converted 888
Muster Roll Workers, who had completed 10 years continuous service in the
Muster Roll Service converted into Work-charged establishment in which the
petitioner appeared at Serial No. 621 of Technical Jugali.
WP(C) No. 17 of 2023 Page 2
[3] The petitioner submitted an application dated 22.01.2021 to the
Commissioner (PHED), Government of Manipur requesting for confirmation of
his Work-Charged Service. However, the Chief Engineer, PHED, Manipur
issued a letter dated 10.02.2021 to the petitioner stating that PHE Department
did not have any permanent post for the Work-Charged establishment and
there was no vacancy for the Work-charged establishment. Further, it is stated
that those incumbents who were converted from Work-charged establishment
would stand automatically abolished as and when converted incumbents retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
[4] The petitioner rendered his Work-Charged service for 22 years
and 20 days and retired from the service w.e.f. 31.01.2021 on attaining the age
of superannuation. Vide order dated 26.02.2021 issued by the Chief Engineer,
PHED, Government of Manipur, the service of the petitioner was terminated
along with other incumbents.
[5] The Government of Manipur: Secretariat Finance Department
(PIC) published a Second Amendment of the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978
called the Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Employees of
PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and Electricity (Second Amendment) Rules, 2020 stating
that the entitlement of pension to a permanent Work-charged Employees, who
retired on attaining the age of 55 years for not less than 20 years on the date
of publication of the Rules in the official Gazette. However, the Gazette was
published on 07.01.2021 and the petitioner was retired on 31.01.2021.
[6] Vide memorandum dated 25.05.1979 issued by the Director
General or Works, CPWD, Government of India, New Delhi wherein it is stated
WP(C) No. 17 of 2023 Page 3
that all categories of Work-charged Employees should be a uniform period of
probation of one year and as per the Government of India decision dated
28.03.1988, the persons who completed probation in the first appointment will
be declared as permanent, the present distinction between permanent and
temporary employees for grant of pension and other pensionary benefits will
cease to exist. Since, the petitioner had completed 22 years working as
Worked-charged Employee, he is entitled for pension and other retirement
benefits under the Terminal Benefits of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and Electricity
Manipur, Rules, 1978 and its subsequent Second Amendment Rules, 2020.
[7] Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated
that the petitioner was converted to Work-charged Employees from Muster
Roll/Casual vide order dated 11.01.1999 and as per the order dated
19.03.2001, conversion of Casual Staff to Work-charged and Work-charged
Staff to regular establishment notified by the State Government is one time
measure. It is further stated that the petitioner is neither permanent Work-
charged nor is confirmed and as such, any pensionary benefits, etc cannot be
arise. It is also stated that Section 6 of the Terminal Benefits for Work-charged
Employees of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI/Electricity Manipur Rules, 1978 (the
Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978) provides that retirement benefits to be given
only to the permanent Work-charged Employees. It is stated that there is no
existing policy/rule of the State Government for conversion of Work-charged
employees to permanent Work-charged establishment and for regularization
and the scheme for conversion/regularization as notified by the Department of
personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personal Division), Government of
WP(C) No. 17 of 2023 Page 4
Manipur (DP) on 16.04.1997 was a one time measure. Vide O.M. dated
22.01.2001, confirmation of Work-charged Employee should be made against
the permanent posts in the Work-charged Establishment and there is no
confirmation of the Work-charged Employee, the petitioner cannot enjoy the
pensionary benefits. It is prayed that writ petition be dismissed as being devoid
of merit.
[8] Respondent No. 5 filed counter affidavit stating that conversion of
Casual/Muster Roll Worker into Work-charged is under the Department of PHE,
Manipur and it was a policy decision of the concerned Department. It is stated
that the answering respondent has nothing to comment as framed the rule
called the Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Employee of
PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI & Electricity Manipur Rules, 1978 and its subsequent
amendments are dealt by the concerned Department (PHED). The pension
proposal submitted by the concerned Department is forwarded to the Office of
the Accountant General (A & E), Manipur after due verification for finalizing the
pensionary benefits as Relevant Rules. It is prayed that writ petition be
dismissed as being devoid of merit.
[9] In the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 5, it is also stated that
the Principal Accountant General/Accountant General has nothing to
implement the decisions that are not in consonance with rules, regulation and
Government Instructions and the power to relax rules or waive any condition in
the rules/instructions rests solely with the State Government. Hence, the
Principal Accountant General/Accountant General responsible for a function in
which he does not have any say, except for more compliance, is not as per the
WP(C) No. 17 of 2023 Page 5
provisions. The Office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Manipur
only follows the orders of the State Government and the Rules Governing the
pensionary benefits. It is stated that confirmation/regularization of the Work-
charged Employee of the State Government is the sole responsibility of the
Administrative Department of the State Government and pension papers,
Service Books and other related documents in respect of the petitioner as
required under Rule 54(6) of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1977 are yet to be received
in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Manipur from the
Department of personnel (Pension Cell), Government of Manipur. As such,
there is no action pending on the part of the Principal Accountant General (A &
E), Manipur.
[10]
In the rejoinder affidavit it is state that the petitioner’s
Casual/Muster Roll service was converted to the Work-charged Establishment
vide order dated 11.01.1999 and his Work-charged service was covered by the
Terminal Benefits for the Work-charged Staffs of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and
Electricity Manipur Rules, 1978 and its subsequent Amendment Rules which
was framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 5 of the Rule
itself clearly mentioned that 413 Work-charged Employees have become
permanent so far in different categories of Work-charged posts in the
PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI/Electricity, Manipur. It is stated that Clause (1)(a) of Rule
6 of the Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Employees of
PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI/Electricity Rules, 1978 has been amended by the
Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Employees of
PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI/Electricity (Second Amendment) Rules, 2020 published
WP(C) No. 17 of 2023 Page 6
in the Manipur Gazette on 07.01.2021 and by the Second Amendment Rules,
2020 substituted Clause (a) of Rule 6 (1). The petitioner had rendered service
nd
for 22 years as Work-charged Employee and he is entitled under the 2
Amendment Rules, 2020.
[11] Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the present case is squarely covered by a recent judgment of
this Court in the case of Smt. Chingangbam Pateshori Devi v. State of
Manipur & Ors [Judgment dated 05.02.2024 in WP(C) No. 951 of 2022],
w
here it has been held that the benefit Rule 6A & 6B of ‘Terminal Benefits
for Work-Charged Staffs of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and Electricity (Manipur)
Rules, 1978 (as amended) will be applicable to both permanent and non-
’
permanent work-charged employees for availing terminal benefits including
family pension. The decision has been arrived on consideration on earlier
decisions of this Court in WP(C) No. 369 of 2015, WA No. 29 of 2009 and
WA No. 48 of 2018. Relevant para 10 of the judgment dated 05.02.2024 in
WP(C) No. 951 of 2022 is reproduced below for clarity.
[10] This Court has considered the rival submissions
“
made at bar, the pleadings of the parties and the
settled propositions of law in this regard. From the
above cited decisions, it is quite clear that on joint
s for
reading of Rules 6A & 6B of “Terminal Benefit
Work-Charged Staffs of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and
Electricity (Manipur) Rules, 1978” (as amended), the
terminal benefits are entitled to both permanent and
non-permanent work-charged employees and their
family members. It has been held that there is no
difference between the permanent and non-
permanent work-charged employees for availing
terminal benefits including family pension. The Rules
of 1978 does not specify any requirement of
confirmation to avail terminal benefit. This Court does
WP(C) No. 17 of 2023 Page 7
not find any force in the submission of Mrs. Ch.
Sundari, learned GA to the fact that the earlier
decisions are not precent, as the OM dated
22.01.2001 for confirmation of work-charged
employees was not considered in those decisions.”
[12] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts of
the present case similar to that of Pateshori case (supra). In the present
case also, the petitioner was working more than 22 years as work-
charged employee and non-confirmation does not affect his right to
pensionary benefits in terms of Rules 6A & 6B, as held in the above para.
It is prayed that similar relief be granted to the petitioner for entitlement of
pensionary benefits.
[13] Mr. Ch. Sundari, learned GA submits that the ratio of
Pateshori case will not be applicable to the present case. Mr. S.
Samarjeet, learned Sr.PCCG for respondent No.5 submits that unless the
administrative department refers the case of the petitioner for granting
pensionary benefit, the office of the Principal Accountant General,
Manipur has no role.
[14] This Court peruses the materials on record, the submissions
made at bar and relevant case law. It is seen that the present case is
squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Pateshori
(supra). In that case, it has been held that the terminal benefits under
Rules of 1978 (as amended) would be applicable to both permanent and
non-permanent work-charged employees of the various engineering
departments and their family members. It is further held that there is no
WP(C) No. 17 of 2023 Page 8
difference between the permanent and non-permanent work-charged
employees for availing the benefits and no requirement for confirmation.
[15] In the present case, the petitioner worked for more than 22
years as work-charged employee in the PHED and as such he falls within
the ambit of Rules 6A & 6B, as held in Pateshori case (supra). And he
is entitled to the terminal benefits in terms of Rules of 1978. Accordingly,
respondents are directed to take steps for releasing service pension to
the petitioner and other retirement benefits. The administrative
department is directed to complete the process of preparation of
necessary papers within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and the Principal Accountant General
Manipur shall issue necessary pension authority within a period of 1 (one)
month from the date of receipt of necessary documents from the
administrative department. No cost.
[16] Writ petition is allowed in terms of the above directions. Send
a copy of this order to the respondents for information and necessary
compliance.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Kh. Joshua Maring
KH. Digitally signed
by KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA
MARING
Date: 2024.05.02
MARING
09:34:06 +05'30'
WP(C) No. 17 of 2023 Page 9