AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Mongia, C.J.—By this judgment and order of ours we propose to dispose of the following six appeals:
(1) Writ Appeal No. 154/1998 arising out of Civil Rule No. 62/1997
(2) Writ Appeal No. 156/1998 arising out of Civil Rule No. 1015/1997
(3) Writ Appeal No. 157/1998 arising out of Civil Rule No. 246/1996
(4) Writ Appeal No. 135/1998 arising out of Civil Rule No. 374/1995 of
(5) Writ Appeal No. 155/1998 arising out of Civil Rule No. 132/1997
(6) Writ Appeal No. 102/2000 arising out of Civil Rule No. 425/1998
First four appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.8.1998. First three writ petitions, namely, Civil Rule No. 62/1997,1015/1997 and 246/1996 against which first three writ appeals have been filed were allowed whereas Civil Rule No. 374/1995 out of which Writ Appeal No. 135/1998 has arisen was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Civil Rule No. 132/1997 as well as Civil Rule No. 425/1998 out of which Writ Appeal No. 155/1998 and Writ Appeal No. 102/2000 have arisen were allowed vide judgments dated 1.9.1998 and 9.5.2000 respectively in the same terms as in judgment dated 25.8.1998 vide which 3 (three) Civil Rules, mentioned above, were allowed. Writ Appeals at serial Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 and 6 have been filed by the State Government whereas Writ Appeal at serial No. 4 i.e. Writ Appeal No. 135/1998 has been filed by the writ Petitioner of Civil Rule No. 374/1995.
Before coming with the grip of the cases, some provisions of the Rules called Terminal Benefits for work-charged staff of PWD, IFC, PHE, MI, Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978 (hereinafter called "Rules") may be noticed. These Rules came into effect with effect from 18.9.1978. Rule 6 of the Rules provide for the benefits which are available to the permanent work-charged staff. Rule 6 is in the following terms:
The permanent Work Charged staff may be allowed to get the following benefits in the pattern of CPWD:
(i) (a) Pension only calculated under the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time if the permanent work-charged employees who retire at the age of 55 years and has at least 30 years service to his credit.
(b) or to a permanent works-charged employee who had been incapacitated in service but had put in 20 years service before he was incapacitated at whatever age.
(ii) Gratuity calculated under the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time, provided:
(a) he had rendered more than 20 years service and retired at the age of 55 or later.
(b) he had rendered 15 years of service before he was incapacitated for further service.
After Rule 6 (ii) (b), Rule 6(A) came to be inserted by notification dated 21.6.1990. The said Rule 6(A) reads as under:
The following shall be added as Rule 6(A) below Rule 6(ii)(b):
Rule 6(A) - Family pension as calculated under the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time.
There aforesaid Rule 6(A) came into force with immediate effect, i.e., the date of publication (21.6.1999).
Vide notification dated 6.6.1991, Rule 6(B) came to be added after Rule 6(A). Rule 6(B) reads as under:
Rule 6(B) - Terminal benefit shall also be admissible to the work-charged employees who retired prior to 18.9.1978 and whose family members are living on the date of issue of this order from 18.9.1978 and also Family pension to the families of work charged employees who died prior to 21.6.1990 and whose family members are living on the date of issue of this order.
Rule 6(A) (supra) which was introduced on 21.6.1990 further came to be substituted on 21.5.1993, which reads as under:
i) This Rule may be called the Terminal benefit for work-charged staff PWD, IFCD, PHED, MI and Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 1993.
ii) They shall come into force from the date of publication in the Manipur Gazette.
Amendment to Rule 6:
The following shall be substituted for Rule 6A of the Terminal Benefit for work-charged staff PWD, IFCD, PHED, MI and Electricity Rules, 1978.
Rule 6-A. Family pension as calculated under the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time subject to the following conditions:
i) The benefit shall be available to the family of any permanent work charged employees who rendered not less than 1 (one) years of service after confirmation.
ii) These amendments would have prospective effect only and no arrears shall be paid.
Yet again, Rule 6(A) further came to be substituted on 8.9.94. The same reads as under: 1. i) These rules may be called the Terminal Benefit for work charged staff PWD, IFCD, PHED, MI and Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 1994.
ii) They shall come into force from the date of publication in the official Gazette.
In Rule 6(A) of the Terminal Benefit for work-charged staff PWD, IFCD, PHED, MI and Electricity Rules, 1978, the following rules shall be substituted, namely:
Rule 6-A. Family pension as calculated under the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1978 as amended from time to time subject to the following conditions:
i) The benefit shall be available to the family of any permanent work charged employees who died while in service on or after 21.6.1990 after rendering not less than 1 (one) years of service after confirmation.
ii) The payment of family pension shall be effective from 21.5.93 and no arrears in cash or otherwise for the period from 21.6.1990 to 25.5.1993 shall be paid.
The following explanation-II came to be inserted in Rule 6(B) (supra) on 22.12.1995 which was made effect from 6.6.1991. Explanation-II to Rule 6(b) is in the following terms:
Explanation-II
Family pension as contemplate in Rule 6(B) above shall be admissible only to those families of the work-charged employees who were pensioners at the time of their death.
Note : the above Explanation I and II shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 6.6.1991.
Before coming to the factual matrix of different appeals, let us first analyse the aforesaid provisions.
Rule 6(A) which was inserted in the Rules on 21.6.1990 for the first time provided for family pension to the family of a permanent work-charged employee which was to be calculated under the Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977, as amended from time to time. Family pension is always admissible to the family of an employee who has died. In other words, Rule 6(A) envisaged family pension to the family of an employee who might have died on or before 21.6.1990.
Rule 6(B) which was inserted on 6.6.1991 is in two parts - (i) Terminal benefits were made available with effect from 18.8.1978 to a work-charged employee who might have retired even prior to 18.8.1978, i.e., the date of enforcement of the Terminal Benefits Rules and whose family was living on 6.6.1991, and (ii) Family pension was made admissible to a family of a work-charged employee who had died prior to 21.6.1990 and whose family was living on the date of issue of the order, i.e. 6.6.1991.
According to us, the second part of Rule 6(B), which we have analysed above, was only explanatory inasmuch as the notification dated 21.6.1990 by which Rule 6(A) was inserted already had made family pension admissible to a family of work-charged employee with effect from 21.6.1990. In other words, the admissibility of family pension was already there on 21.6.1990. As observed above, family pension would only be admissible if the employee is no more. In other words, family pension would only be admissible if the work-charged employee had died on or before 21.6.1990. It can be said that the second part of Rule 6(b) was already there in the form of Rule 6(A).
The amendment to Rule 6(A) which was brought about on 21.5.1993 (supra) made the admissibility of family pension subject to the following condition:
The permanent work-charged employee before his death should have rendered at least one year of service after confirmation.
The aforesaid condition was to be prospective only, i.e., this condition was to be fulfilled for the admissibility of family pension after 31.5.1993 and would not be applicable to those families who might have already become eligible for family pension under the preexisting rules.
The further conditions which were laid down vide notification dated 8.9.1994 for admissibility of family pension under Rule 6(A) were for those families of permanent work-charged employees who had died on or after 21.6.1990. Rendering of not less than one year of service after confirmation was required. It was further made clear by the aforesaid amendment that family pension would be effective from 21.5.1993. This is because of the reason that one year service after being permanent was introduced only on21.5.1993.
The notification dated 22.12.1995 (supra) by which Explanation-II was added to Rule 6(B) which came into force retrospectively with effect from 6.6.1991 made the family pension admissible to a work-charged employee who was a pensioner at die time of his death. In other words, this would be applicable only to the families of those work-charged employees who died on 6.6.1991 or thereafter. In other words, if a work-charged employee had died on or after 6.6.1991, his family would only be entitled to family pension, if he was a pensioner at the time of his death.
Let us now take the facts of each appeal.
According to our analysis of the provisions regarding the admissibility of family pension, the family pension of such an employee who had died on or before 21.6.1990 would be governed by Rule 6(A) which came to be inserted on 21.6.1990 of the second part of Rule 6(B) which was inserted on 6.6.1991 which according to us is the same as Rule 6(A) inserted on 21.6.1990. For those families whose next of kin, i.e. permanent employees, who had died on or before 21.6.1990 would be entitled to family pension irrespective of the service rendered after becoming permanent or confirmed. The condition of at least one year service by the employee after becoming permanent was introduced only on 21.5.1993 which was specifically made prospective. Accordingly, those writ Petitioners would be entitled to family pension under Rule 6(A) whose bread-earners, i.e. employees, had died on or before 21.6.1990. The bread-earners (employees) in the following writ petitions had died prior to 21.6.1990:
Civil Rule No. 62/97 out of which Writ Appeal No; 154/98 has arisen.
Date of death: 6.3.1990
Civil Rule No/132/97 out of which Writ Appeal No. 155/98 has arisen. Date of death:3.12.1983
Civil Rule No. 425/98 out of which Writ Appeal No. 102/2000 has arisen. Date of death: 16.6.1983
Civil Rule No. 10l5/97 out of which Writ Appeal No. 156/98 has arisen.
Date of death: 15.10.1988
All employees in the aforesaid writ petitions whose families had come up in the writ petitions were confirmed employees prior to their death. Though the learned Single Judge while allowing these writ petitions had also observed that those employees before their death had also completed more than one year service after confirmation, but according to us, the writ Petitioners in the aforesaid four cases would be entitled even without the condition of one year service by the employees after confirmation as that was to introduced only on 21.5.1993.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these State Appeals in the aforesaid four cases.
Now coming to Writ Appeal No. 135/98 arising out of Civil Rule No. 374/95 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge non-suited the writ Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner''s husband (employee) was confirmed by order dated 1.9.1974 with effect from 6.3.1968 and he died on 15.6.1968. According to the learned Single Judge, since the employee had not completed one year of service after being confirmed and more over he had died much prior to the introduction of 1978 rules which came into effect from 18.9.1978, therefore, the writ Petitioner was not entitled to family pension. We are of the view that both the reasons for non-suiting the writ Petitioner are not well-based. No doubt the Rules regarding terminal benefit came into effect on 18.9.1978 and the employee had died prior to introduction of the 1978 Rules. However, vide notification dated 6.6.1991 by which rule 6(B) came to be added made the terminal benefits admissible to an employee who might have retired prior to 18.9.1978 and also family pension to the families of work-charged employees who died prior to 21.6.1990 and whose family members were living on the date of issue of Rule 6(B). Admittedly, the employee had died prior to 21.6.1990 and the family members were living on 6.6.1991 when Rule 6(B) was introduced. Under Rule 6(B) there is no necessity that the employee after confirmation must have completed more than one year of service which as observed above was only introduced on 21.5.1993 (which was prospective). Consequently, the Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 135/98 would be entitled to family pension with effect from 6.6.1991 as the employee had died prior to 21.6.1990, i.e. 15.6.1968, and the family of the employee was living on 6.6.1991 when Rule 6(B) was inserted. In other words, the conditions of Rule 6(B) are complied with.
For the foregoing reasons, Writ Appeal No. 135/98 is allowed in the above terms and the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 374/95 is set aside and the said Civil Rule stands allowed.
So far as Writ Appeal No. 157/98 arising out of Civil Rule No. 246/96 (State Appeal) is concerned, the employee had retired on 29.2.1988. He was a confirmed employee but had died on 5.10.1993, i.e., after 21.6.1990. On the said date of death Rule 6(A) which was substituted on 21.5.1993 and Explanation-II to Rule 6(B) which was introduced on 22.12.1995 with retrospective effect from 6.6.1991 would govern the case of the writ Petitioner. (As a matter of abundant caution, we may observe that we are not opining anything regarding the validity of Explanation-II to Rule 6(B) which was introduced on 22.12.1995 with retrospective effect from 6.6.1991 as the same has not been challenged in the writ petition). As per Rule 6(A) inserted on 21.5.1993 benefit of family pension is available to an employee who had died and before his death he had completed one year of service after confirmation. The employee in this case was confirmed on 12.8.1986 and retired on 29.2.1988. In other words, he had completed more than one year of service after confirmation. The condition of Rule 6(A) as introduced on 21.5.1993 is fulfilled. However, condition as put by Explanation-II to Rule 6(B) on 22.12.1995 with effect from 6.6.1991 envisages that family pension would only be admissible if the work-charged employee was a pensioner at the time of his death. According to the counsel for the Appellant, the learned Single Judge was not correct in awarding the family pension as the condition envisaged by Explanation-II to Rule 6(B) was not fulfilled inasmuch as the employee was not a pensioner at the time of his death. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/writ Petitioner submitted that in fact the employee whose family had filed Civil Rule No. 246/96 was really entitled to pension and the same was wrongly denied. We do not wish to go into that point as to whether the employee i.e., R.K. Thambalsana Singh was entitled to pension or not. We leave it to the authorities concerned to now decide within a period of six months as to whether the employee referred to above was entitled to pension or not. If it is held that he was entitled to pension than arrears of pension be released to the family and the family pension be released to the writ Petitioner with effect from 5.10.1993, i.e. date of death of the employee.
The writ appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
As a result of the above, Writ Appeal Nos. 154/98, 155/98, 156/98 and 102/2000 would stand dismissed, Writ Appeal No. 135/98 would stand allowed as also Writ Appeal No. 157/98 would stand allowed to the extent indicated above. Family pension be calculated as per the Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time, and be released to the writ Petitioners within six months excepting the writ Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 246/96 (Writ Appeal No. 157/98) whose case would be decided as per observations and direction given above.