KABORA
Digita lly signed
MBAM by
KABORAMBAM
SAPANA SAPANA CHANU
Date: 2024.06.03
CHANU 12:32:30 -07'00'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP (C) No. 467 of 2019
1. Smt. Puyam Ibemhal Devi, aged about 57 years, W/o (Late)
Puyam Subol Singh, resident of Lamdeng Makha Leikai, P.O. &
P.S. Lamsang, District Imphal West, Manipur.
........ Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Manipur represented by the
Commissioner/Secretary (PHED), Government of Manipur, P.O.
and P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur, Secretariat
South Block-795001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department
(P.H.E.D.), Government of Manipur, P.O. Imphal, P.S. City
Police, Imphal West District, P.W.D. Complex, at Khuyathong,
Manipur-795001.
3. The Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of Manipur, P.O.
and P.S. Imphal, Chief Minister’s Secretariat at Babupara,
Imphal West District, Manipur-795001.
4. The Joint Secretary/Under Secretary (Pension Cell),
Department of Personnel, Government of Manipur, P.O. and
P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur (Secretariat North
Block)-795001.
.......... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Th. Vashum, GA.
Date of Hearing : 26.02.2024.
Date of Judgment & Order : 29.05.2024.
Page 1
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
[1] Heard Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr. Th. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
[2] The issue raised in the present writ petition is whether the family
members of a work charged employee, whose service is yet to be confirmed,
are entitled to avail family pension under the Terminal Benefits for work charged
staff of PWD/IFC/PHE/MI/Electricity Manipur Rules, 1978 or not (hereinabove
referred to as the Terminal Benefits Rules for short).
“ ”
[3] The case of the petitioner is that, her late husband viz., Puyam Subol
Singh, was initially entered service as a Technical Jugali on muster roll basis in
the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Manipur. While the
technical jugali, the State
petitioner’s husband was serving as a muster roll
Government framed a policy on 16.04.1997 for conversion of casual/muster roll
workers into work charged establishment and work charged employees into
regular employees. Under the said policy those casual/muster roll workers who
have completed 10 (ten) years of service as on 16.04.1997 shall be converted
into work charged establishment and those work charged employees who have
completed 10 (ten) years of service as on 16.04.1997 shall be converted into
regular employees. The said policy was for a one time measure.
[4] In pursuance of the said State policy, the State Government converted
888 muster roll workers, including the petitioner’s husband, who have
completed 10 (ten) years of service as muster roll workers into work charged
Establishment by an order dated 11.01.1999 issued by the Chief Engineer
(Rural), PHED, Manipur. In the said order the name of the petitioner’s husband
appears at serial No. 266.
Page 2
[5] After such conversion into work charged Establishment and after
rendering service as a worked charged Technical Jugali for more than 20
(twenty) years, the petitione 9 while he was
r’s husband expired on 22.03.201
still in service. After her husband death, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 25.04.2019 to the Chief Engineer, PHED, Government of
Manipur requesting for payment of family pension as provided under the
Terminal Benefits Rules. However, such request was not acceded to by the
authorities and by a letter dated 07.05.2019 from the office of the Chief
Engineer, PHED, the petitioner was informed that as there is no policy of the
Government to grant family pension to the retired worked charged employees,
her request cannot be considered at the moment. Having been aggrieved, the
petitioner preferred the present writ petition for redressing her grievances.
[6] It is also the case of the petitioner that while her late husband was
serving as a work charged employee, the Secretariat Finance Department issued
an office memorandum dated 22.01.2001 laying down guidelines for
confirmation of work charged employees. Under the said office memorandum,
it is provided as under:-
(i) Confirmation of work charged employees should be made against the
permanent posts in the work charged Establishment.
(ii) Confirmation of work charged employees may be made only when
they have put in 10 (ten) years service as work charged with the effect
of confirmation from the date, they have completed 5 years service in
the work charged Establishment.
(iii) No, confirmation of those work charged employees who have been
brought to the regular Establishment, with Retrospective effect,
should be made.
Page 3
According to the petitioner, the services of many work charged
employees similarly situated with her late husband have been confirmed or
made permanent in terms of the aforesaid office memorandum. Since her late
husband have rendered more than 20 years’ service as a worked charged
Technical Jugali, he was also entitled to have his work charged service
confirmed in terms of the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid office
memorandum dated 22.01.2001 during his life time. However, because of the
gross negligence and lapses on the part of the concerned authorities, her
husband had been denied of such confirmation and discriminatory treatment
had been meted out to her husband and the petitioner had been made to suffer
for not fault on her part.
[7]
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner’s
late husband rendered service for more than 10 years as a muster roll worker
and for more than 20 years as a work charged employee in the capacity of
Technical Jugali in the PHE Department and as such, after the expiry of her
husband, the petitioner is entitled to avail family pension as provided under the
Rule 6A of the Terminal Benefits Rules irrespective of whether the work charged
service of her late husband was confirmed or not.
[8] It has further been submitted that the issue raised in the present writ
petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016
passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 369 of 2015, judgment and order dated
03.05.2023 passed by this Court in WA No. 48 of 2018 and judgment and order
ourt, Imphal Bench, in
dated 12.08.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High C
WA No. 29 of 2009 and as such, the present writ petition may be disposed of
by granting similar reliefs as has been granted in the above cases.
Page 4
[9] The common stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavits
are as under:-
(i) The guideline laid down in the office memorandum dated 22.01.2001
lays down that confirmation of work charged employees should be
made against the permanent posts in the work charged establishment.
As there is no permanent work charged posts in the PHED, Manipur,
no confirmation could be made;
(ii) Under the office memorandum dated 28.08.2007 laying down
guidelines for confirmation of work charged employees, it is provided
that no retrospective confirmation shall be made after retirement or
expiry of the employee. y
Since the petitioner’s husband had alread
expired before confirmation of his service, no order for confirmation
s husband;
can be made after the expiry of the petitioner’
(iii) Under the Rule 6A of the Terminal Benefits Rules, it is provided that
family pension shall be available only to family members of a
permanent work charged employees. Since the work charged service
of the petitioner’s husband was not confirmed or made permanent,
the petitioner is not entitled to avail family pension in terms of Rule
6A of the Terminal Benefits Rules.
[10] In the present case, the Muster Roll service of the petitioner s
’
husband was converted to Work Charged Establishment by an order dated 11-
01-1999 issued by the Chief Engineer (Rural) PHED, Manipur with immediate
effect. After such conversion to Work Charged establishment, the petitioner s
’
husband rendered service as a Work Charged employee in the PHED for more
than 20(twenty) years till he expired on 22-03-2019 while he was still in service.
The guidelines contained in paragraph 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 22-
01-2001 prescribes that confirmation of Work Charged employee should be
made against the permanent posts in the Work Charged establishment and that
Page 5
confirmation of Work Charged employees may be made only when they have
put in 10(ten) years’ service as Work Charged with the effect of confirmation
arged
from the date, they have completed 5 (five) years’ service in the Work Ch
establishment.
[11] On examination of the record, it is found that the petitioner s
’
husband
have put in 10(ten) years’ service as Work Charged employee in the
year 2009, more than a decade before the date of his expiry, and as such, this
Court is of the considered view that the petitioner s husband was entitled to
’
have his case considered by the authorities for confirmation of his Work Charged
services in terms of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 22-01-2001 well
before his expiry. Only because of the failure or negligence on the part of the
concerned authorities, the petitioner s husband had been deprived of his Work
’
Charged services being confirmed as provided under the said Office
Memorandum dated 22-01-2001 and the petitioner has been made to suffer on
account of the failure and negligence on the part of the respondents and for no
fault on her part.
[12] With regard to the first stand taken by the respondents, it is to be
pointed out that such stand of the respondents is contrary to the materials
available on record. As many as 412 permanent Work Charged posts in the
Engineering Departments of the Manipur Government were available at the time
of publication of the Terminal Benefits Rule and such factum is clearly
mentioned at Rule 5 of the said Terminal Benefits Rule. In the said Rule 5, it is
also mentioned that some more permanent posts at various departments are to
be created for confirmation of Work Charged staffs. Moreover by an order dated
10-03-1988 issued by the Chief Engineer (PHED), Manipur, a copy of which was
submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, altogether 57 various categories of
permanent Work Charged posts, including 16 posts of Technical Jugali were
created. In view of such undisputed factual positions, this Court is not inclined
to accept the stand taken by the respondents that the Work Charged services
Page 6
of the petitioner cannot be confirmed as there was no permanent
’s husband
post in the PHED.
[13] With regard to the second stand taken by the respondents, it is to
be pointed out that the
petitioner’s husband completed 10 (ten) years’ service
as work charged employee in the year 2009, more than a decade before the
date of his expiry, and as such, this Court is of the considered view that the
band was entitled to have his case considered for confirmation
petitioner’s hus
of his service under the O.M. dated 22-01-2001 well before his expiry. Only
because of the failure or negligence on the part of the authorities, he had been
deprived of such confirmation. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered view that there is no force or merit in the second stand taken by the
respondents. Guidelines contained in para 2(3) of the Office Memorandum
dated 28-08-2007 cannot stand in the way or deprived the petitioner s husband
’
of his valuable rights to have his case considered for confirmation of his Work
Charged service as provided under the Office Memorandum dated 22-01-2001,
specially when large number of Work Charged staffs/employees similarly
situated with the petitioner s husband have been given the benefit of
’
confirmation under the said Office Memorandum.
[14] In so far as the 3rd stand taken by the respondents is concerned,
this Court is of the considered view that the issue raised by the respondents is
no longer res integra. The issue as to whether the Work Charged employee,
who is not yet confirmed or made permanent is entitled to get pension or not
under the Terminal Benefits rule had been already considered and decided by
the judgment and order dated 12-08-2010 passed by a Division Bench of the
Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in WA No. 29 of 2009. The said writ appeal
was filed by the State of Manipur challenging the judgment and order dated 20-
11-2007 passed by the learned Single Bench in WP (C) No. 899 of 2006
extending the benefit of family pension to the widow of the Work Charged
employee whose service was yet to be confirmed.
Page 7
[15] In the said judgment and order, it has been held, inter alia, that
confirmation of service and/or permanency in service by issuance of specific
order is always an uncertainty and that in normal circumstances, employee after
rendering a particular length of service is entitled to get his service confirmed
or made permanent. It has further been held that for availing pension/family
pension upon the confirmation of service is required, the authorities may do so
by passing appropriate order and thereafter, the Division Bench dismissed the
writ appeal and refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the relevant portion of the aforesaid
judgment and order are reproduced herein for ready reference :-
Rule 6B which has been quoted above having not made any
“10.
distinction between confirmed and permanent work-charged
employees and those who are not confirmed work-charge employees,
we are of the considered opinion that upon a reference to some other
provision
s, the expression ‘confirmation and permanent’ cannot be
brought into the said provisions. Be that as it may, on perusal of the
chart which forms part of the Division Bench judgment what we find is
that, there are many work-charged employees whose services were
confirmed retrospectively. In many cases, work-charged employees
were confirmed after their expiry. Thus, it cannot be said that the
benefits to which the families of the said work-charged employees were
provided by way of family pension would require confirmation of
service of the deceased husband of the petitioner for said benefits to
the petitioner. If for family pension to the petitioner confirmation of her
husband’s service is required, the authority may do so by passing
appropriate order as was done in case of the persons which we find
mention in the Division Bench judgment.
11. Needless to say confirmation of service and/or permanency in
“
service by issuance of specific order is always an uncertainty. In the
normal circumstances, an employee after rendering a particular length
of service is entitled to get his service confirmed or permanent. In the
instant case, husband of the petitioner rendered sufficient length of
service so as to earn confirmation. The chart which formed part of the
Division Bench judgment shows that a work-charged employee who
was appointed on 03-08-1979 was confirmed w.e.f. 01-03-1986.
Likewise, another employee who was appointed on 21-03-1978 was
confirmed by order dated 25-02-1992 w.e.f. 12-08-1996. Another
Page 8
employee who was appointed on 01-08-1959 was confirmed w.e.f. 05-
03-1968 by order dated 09-01-1974 after expiry on 15-08-1968. There
is another employee who was appointed on 28-03-1962 was confirmed
on 06-03-1968 by order dated 09-01-1994 after his expiry on 08-01-
1983.
Above being the position, we see no reason as to why the
”12.
petitioner who has filed the writ petition should be deprived of similar
treatment. Situated thus, we see no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge
dated 20-11-2007 in WP(C) No. 899 of 2006
.”
[16] The SLP being SLP C No. 218/2011 filed by the State of Manipur
assailing the aforesaid judgment and order dated 12-08-2010 passed in WA No.
29 of 2009 had already been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court by an order
dated 17-01-2011 and as such the matter has attained finality.
[17] In my considered view, the corollary of the aforesaid judgment and
order dated 12-08-2010 passed in WA No. 29 of 2009 is that
confirmation/permanency of the Work Charged service of an employee is not
sine qua non for availing pension / family pension under the Terminal Benefits
Rule, if it is found that the Work Charged employee was entitled to get
confirmation/permanency in terms of applicable guidelines.
[18] Taking into consideration the fact and circumstances of the present
case and in view of the findings and reasons given therein above, this Court is
of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in
the present petition. In the result, the present petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner s husband for
’
confirmation of his Work Charged service in terms of the Office Memorandum
dated 22-01-2001 and to issue necessary orders for confirmation of his Work
Charged service, if the same is considered necessary. The whole process should
be completed within a period of 2(two) months from today. Thereafter the
respondents are further directed to expedite the process for payment of family
pension to the petitioner in terms of Rule 6A of the Terminal Benefits Rule as
Page 9
amended from time to time as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of 5 (five) months from today.
[19] With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed
of. There will be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sapana
Page 10