1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective writ petitioners as well as Mr.Asok Potsangbam, learned Advocate General,Manipur assisted by Mr. Suresh Sarangthem, Jr. to learned A.G as well as Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned CGSC and Mr. K. Bipinchandra Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2 All these 18(eighteen) writ petitions involve common question of fact and law. Over and above, the relief sought for in all these writ petitions are similar. The main relief sought for in all the writ petitions is for a direction to the respondents for making payment of family pension, if they are entitled as per “ The Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and Electricity, Manipur, Rules, 1978 (As amended from time to time) by extending the benefits of the common judgment and order of this court (Division Bench) dated 1.10.2001 passed in W.A. No.154/98, 156/98, 157/98, 135/98, 155/98 and 102 of 2000. Accordingly, I propose to dispose of these 18 writ petitions by a common judgment and order. In order to appreciate brief facts of all the 18 writ petitions, at a glance, a chart indicating the name of the writ petitioner, number and particulars of the writ petitions, particulars of the work-charged employee and date of confirmation of the work-charged employee in the work-charged establishment, date of expiry of the confirmed work-charged employee and type of relations of the writ petitioner with the deceased work-charged employee is prepared hereunder: Sl. No. Writ Petition No. Name of the work-charged employee Date of confir- Date of expiry and relation with the writ petitioner mation of the of the work- work-charged charged employee employee 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. W.P.© No.1445/2003 Naorem Selungba Singh, 15.1977 2.2.1984 (Husband of the writ petitioner, N. (O) Chaobi Devi) 2. W.P.© No.118/2004 L. Pishak Singh, (Husband of the 17.1.1974 12.8.1977 writ petitioner, L.(O) Bhanisana Devi) 3. W.P.© No.119/2004 N. Budha Singh, (Husband of the 20.4.1999 1.12.1991 writ petitioner, N.(O) Tombi Devi) 4. W.P.© No.114/2004 N. Pobitro Singh, (Husband of the 20.4.1999 2.6.1991 writ petitioner, N.(O) Thambou Devi) 5. W.P.© No.117/2004 S. Gambhir Singh, (Husband of the 15.1.1979 6.8.1983 writ petitioner, S.(O) Badani Delvi) 6. W.P.© No. 526/2003 Ch. Ibomcha Singh, (Husband of the 28.1.1991 8.4.l987 writ petitioner, Ch.(O) Ahanbi Devi) 7. W.P.© No.525/2003 L. Santababu Singh, (Husband of the 30.1.1975 29.4.l975 writ petitioner, L.(O) Pramodini Devi) 8. W.P.© No.117/2004 S. Gambhir Singh, (Husband of the 15.1.1979 6.8.1983 writ petitioner, S.(O) Badani Delvi) 6. W.P.© No. 526/2003 Ch. Ibomcha Singh, (Husband of the 28.1.1991 8.4.l987 writ petitioner, Ch.(O) Ahanbi Devi) 7. W.P.© No.525/2003 L. Santababu Singh, (Husband of the 30.1.1975 29.4.l975 writ petitioner, L.(O) Pramodini Devi) 8. W.P.© No. 330/2004 M. Lukhoi Singh, (Husband of the writ 22.11.1991 2.1.2990 writ petitioner, M.(O) Chandrajini Devi) 9. W.P.© No.74l/2003 Shri Makanta Sharma, (Husband of the 1.5.1977 6.9.1983 writ petitioner, Smt. Ajimaya Devi) 10. W.P.© No.1043/2003 Thiyam Lomol Singh, (Husband of the 29.4.l985 5.6.1990 writ petitioner, Smt. Th.(O) Konubi Devi) 11.W.P.© No.1185/2003 Laishram Ibobi Singh, (Husband of the 9.6.1992 14.5.1980 writ petitioner, Smt. L.(O) Jamini Devi) 12. W.P.© No.697/2004 N. Guno .Singh, (Husband of the 12.5.l988 10.2.1983 writ petitioner, N.(O) Pishak Devi) 13. W.P.© No.544/2004 A. Deben Singh, (Husband of the 2.12.1992 22.1.1982 writ petitioner, Smt. A.(O) Jandho Devi) 14. W.P.© No.75/2005 Laishram Birachandra Singh, 15.1.1979 17.10.1983 (Husband of the writ petitioner, L. (O) Jati Devi) 15. W.P.© No.76/2005 Pumjalian, (Husband of the writ 21.5.1993 22.12.1989 petitioner, Smt. Dongi) 16. W.P.© No.10/2005 Heman Mangi Singh, (Husband of the 8.8.1994 21.5.1984 writ petitioner, Smt. H.(O) Bidhu Devi) 17. W.P.© No.137/2004 Kh. Ingocha Singh, (Husband of the 1.1.1987 10.4.1988 writ petitioner, Smt. Kh. (O) Bimola Devi) 18.W.P.© No.1612/2003 Sanasam Amu Singh, (Husband of the Date of regular 18.2.1987 writ petitioner, S.(O)Nungshi Devi) appointment as work-charged employee 6.6.979 3. Before directly discussing the family pensions under the provisions of the Rules called “ The Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and Electricity, Manipur, Rules, 1978”, which shall herein call “Rules 1978”, it is required to see the law relating with the pensions and also the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding the entitlement of pensions to the retired government employees. The questions such as (1) What is a Pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwared by such artificial division of retirement pre and post on a certain date has been discussed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in D.S. Nakara and others - vrs - Union of India, reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 . The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had discussed the right to pension of the Govt. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had discussed the right to pension of the Govt. employee in Deokinandan Prasad - vrs - State of Bihar and other, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1409 . The Apex court in Deokinandan Prasad (supra) held that the pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the government and that on the other hand, right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. Para-30 of AIR in Deokinandan Prasad (supra) is quoted hereunder: “30. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. By a reference to the material provisions in the Pension Rules, we have already indicated that the grant of pension does not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect. It may be that for the purposes of quantifying the amount having regard to the period of service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules. The Rules, we have already pointed out, clearly recognize the right of persons like the petitioner to receive pensions under the circumstances mentioned therein.” 4. In a social welfare state, pension is a socio-economic justice measure providing relief when advancing age gradually but irrevocably impairs capacity to stand on one's own feet. If the pension is paid for past satisfactory service rendered, and to avoid destitution in old age as well as social welfare or socio-economic justice measure, differential treatment for those retiring prior to certain date and those retiring subsequently, the choice of date being wholly arbitrary, would be according to differential treatment to pensioners who from a class irrespective of the date of retirement and, therefore, would be violative of Article 14 as held by the Apex Court in D.S. Nakara and others (supra). The Apex Court in D.S. Nakara and others (supra), further, held that the reasons underlying the grant of pension vary from country to country and from scheme to scheme. The Apex Court in D.S. Nakara and others (supra), further, held that the reasons underlying the grant of pension vary from country to country and from scheme to scheme. But broadly stated they are: (i) as compensation to former members of the arm forces or their dependents for old age, disability, or death (usually from service causes), (ii) as old age retirement or disability benefits for civilian employees, and (iii) as social security payments for the aged, disabled, or deceased citizens made in accordance with the rules governing social service programmes of the country. A political society which has a goal of setting up of a welfare state, would introduce and has in fact introduced as a welfare measure wherein the retiral benefit is grounded on considerations of state obligation to its citizens who having rendered service during the useful span of life must not be left to penury in their old age, but the evolving concept of social security is a later day development. Further, the Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in D.S. Nakara and others (supra) held that classification in revised pension formula between pensioners on the basis of date of retirement as specified in the memorandum is arbitrary and violative of Article 15. Para-49 of AIR in D.S. Nakara & others (supra) is quoted hereunder: “49. But we make it abundantly clear that arrears are not required to be made because to that extent the scheme is prospective. All pensioners whenever they retired would be covered by the liberalized pension scheme, because the scheme is a scheme for payment of pensioner to a pensioner governed by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement is irrelevant. But the revised scheme would be operative from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its umbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired subsequent to that date. In case of pensioners who retired prior to the specified date, their pension would be computed afresh and would be payable in future commencing from the specified date. No arrears would be payable. And that would take care of the grievance of retrospectivity. In our opinion, it would make a marginal difference in the case of past pensioners because the emoluments are not revised. The last revision of emoluments was as per the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission (Raghubar Dayal Commission). No arrears would be payable. And that would take care of the grievance of retrospectivity. In our opinion, it would make a marginal difference in the case of past pensioners because the emoluments are not revised. The last revision of emoluments was as per the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission (Raghubar Dayal Commission). If the emoluments remain the same, the computation of average emoluments under amended R.34 may raise the average emoluments, the period for averaging being reduced from last 36 months to last 10 months. The slab will provide slightly higher pension and if someone reaches the maximum the old lower ceiling will not deny him what is otherwise justly due on computation. The words “who were in service on 31st March, 1979 and retiring from service on or after that date” excluding the date for commencement of revision are words of limitation introducing the mischief and are vulnerable as denying equality and introducing an arbitrary fortuitous circumstance can be served without impairing the formula. Therefore, there is absolutely no difficulty in removing the arbitrary and discriminatory portion of the scheme and it can be easily served.” The Apex Court in Smt. Poonamal etc.etc. - vrs - Union of India and others, repored in 1985 SC 1196 held that the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 has become non-contributory effective from 22.9.1977. If widows and dependents of deceased government servants since after September 22, 1977 would be entitled to benefits of family pension scheme without the obligation of making contribution, those widows who were denied the benefits on the ground that the government servants having not agreed to make the contribution, could not be differently treated, because that would be introducing an invidious classification among those who would be entitled to similar treatment (emphasis supplied). The Apex Court in V.M. Gadre (Dead) by L.R. & Others - vrs - M.G. Diwan and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1534 held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142, it would not be permissible for the court to substitute all the existing service conditions by a totally new set of service conditions. That would tantamount to re-writing the service conditions and consequently the retiral benefits as well for all those who had retired long back and are in receipt of pension under the extant rules. That would tantamount to re-writing the service conditions and consequently the retiral benefits as well for all those who had retired long back and are in receipt of pension under the extant rules. As such, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in V.M. Gadre (supra) is that the court cannot substitute existing pension plan with a totally new plan. In these present writ petitions, this court is only interpreting the provisions of the “The Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and Electricity, Manipur, Rules, 1978 (As amended from time to time)”. Again, the Apex Court in State Bank of India - vrs - L. Kannaih and others, reported in (2003) 10SCC 499 held that fixation of cut-off date for applicability of pension scheme is violative of Article 14 inasmuch as prescribing cut-off date of such induction as on 1.1.1965 shall exclude the employees who have already been completed minimum qualifying services for pension. Para-6 of SCC in State Bank of India is quoted hereunder: “6. Para 5 of the circular stipulated that the age-limit (viz. not being over 35 years) for admission to Pension Fund shall continue. Thus the pensioned ex-service personnel were admitted to pensionary benefits with effect from 1.1.1965 subject to the restriction of the age-limit of 35 years (which was later on enhanced to 38 years) on that date. As the date of confirmation of the respondents was much earlier to 1.1.1965, the crucial date for admission to the Pension Fund would be 1.1.1965. On that date, the confirmed employee of the Bank should not have exceeded 35 years of age. That is the combined effect of Staff Circular No.18 dated 8.4.1974 read with the Pension Fund appears to be that the employee would be able to render minimum service of 20 years as contemplated by Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules. However, there does not appear to be any rationale or discernible basis for fixing the cut-off date as 1.1.1965, notwithstanding their earlier confirmation in bank service. True, a new benefit has been conferred on the ex-servicemen and, therefore, a cut-off date could be fixed for extending this new benefit, without offending ratio of the decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India but, there could be no arbitrariness or irrationality in fixing such date. True, a new benefit has been conferred on the ex-servicemen and, therefore, a cut-off date could be fixed for extending this new benefit, without offending ratio of the decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India but, there could be no arbitrariness or irrationality in fixing such date. Minimum qualifying service being the essential consideration, even according to the Bank, there is no reason why the ex-servicemen like the respondents, who from the date of their confirmation had put in more than twenty years of service, even taking the retirement age as 58, should be excluded. No reason is forthcoming in the counter-affidavit filed by the Bank for choosing the said date. When it is decided to extend the pensionary benefits to ex-servicemen drawing pension, the denial of the benefit to some of the serving employees should be based on rational and intelligible criterion. In substance, that is the view taken by the High Court and we see no reason to differ with that view.” 5. The Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978, which shall hereinafter call 'Rules 1978' came into effect from 18.9.1978. Rule 6 of Rules 1978 provides for benefits which are available to the permanent work-charged staffs. The Governor of Manipur issued order being No.5/3/70-W(Pt)A, Imphal dated 21st June, 1990 for amendment of the Rules 1978 and it reads as follows: “ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR;MANIPUR Imphal,dated,the 21st June,1990. No.5/3/70-W(Pt)A: The Governor of Manipur is pleased to make the following rules to further amend the Terminal Benefit for Wrok-charged Staff of PWD/IFC/PHED/MID and Electricity Rules, 1978. (1) This rule may be called the Terminal Benefit for Work-charged Staff PWD/IFC/PHED/MID and Electricity Rules,1990. (2) These orders shall come into force with immediate effect. (3) 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. By orders etc., Sd/-(M. Tuizar ) Commissioner(Works),Govt. of Manipur.” The Government of Manipur again issued another order being No.6/3/70-W(Pt)A, Imphal dated the 6th June, 1991 for amending the Rules 1978 which reads as follows:- “ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR; MANIPUR Imphal, the 6th June,1991 No.6/3/70-W(Pt)A: The Governor of Manipur is pleased to make the following amendments in the Terminal Benefit for Work-charged Staffs of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MID/Electricity Rules, 1978. 1. of Manipur.” The Government of Manipur again issued another order being No.6/3/70-W(Pt)A, Imphal dated the 6th June, 1991 for amending the Rules 1978 which reads as follows:- “ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR; MANIPUR Imphal, the 6th June,1991 No.6/3/70-W(Pt)A: The Governor of Manipur is pleased to make the following amendments in the Terminal Benefit for Work-charged Staffs of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MID/Electricity Rules, 1978. 1. These rule may be called the Terminal Benefit for Work-charged staff PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and Electricity Rules, 1991. 2. The following shall be added as Rule 6(B) below Rule 6(A):- “Rule 6(B) - Terminal Benefit shall also be admissible to the Work-charged Employees who retired prior to 18.9.1978 but 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 but are living on the date of issue of this order”. By orders & in the name of the GOVERNOR OF MANIPUR Sd/-(M. Tuizar) Commissioner (Works),Govt. of Manipur.” Subsequently, a corrigendum being No.6/3/70-W(Pt)A, Imphal, the 21st June, 1991 to the effect that “ and whose family members are living on the date of issue of this order” in place of “but are living on the date of issue of this order” occurring in 6th and 7th lines of Rule 6(B) of this Govt.'s order No.6/3/70-W(Pt)A dated 6.6.91. Therefore, according to the Rules 1978, amended upto 21.6.1991, the work-charged employees who retired prior to 18.9.1978 and whose family members are living are entitled to the family pensions. Such being the situation, the writ petitioners of the above writ petitions in which the concerned work-charged employees who died prior to 18.9.1978 and whose family members are living on 6.6.1991 shall be entitled to family pension under the Rules 1978. 6. The Governor of Manipur issued order being No.6/3/70-W(Pt) A, Imphal, dated the 21st May, 1993 for amendment of the Rules 1978 and it reads as follows:- “N O T I F I C A T I O N Imphal,dated,the 21st May/1993 No.6/3/70-W(Pt)A: The Governor of Manipur is pleased to make the following Rules to further amend the Terminal Benefit for Work-charged Staff of PWD,IFCD,PHED,MI and Electricity Rule,1978: (1). (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. (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. (2) Amendment to Rule 6; The following shall be substituted for Rule 6A of the Terminal Benefit for Work-charged staff PWD,IFC,PHED,MI and Electricity Rjule,1978. Rule 6A - 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) year of service after confirmation. (ii) These amendments would have prospective effect only and no arrears shall be paid. By orders, etc., Sd/-(A.J. Tayeng) Commissioner/Works:Govt. of Manipur” But by another notification issued by the Governor of Manipur being No.17/386-PIC, Imphal, the 28th September,1994 further amended the Rules 1978 and it reads as follows: “N O T I F I C A T I O N Imphal,the 8th September,1994 No.17/386-PIC: The Governor of Manipur is pleased to accord approval to make the following rules further to amend the Terminal Benefit for Work-charged Staff of PWD, IFCD,PHED,MI and Electricity Rules 1978. 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 of PWD, IFCD,PHED,MI and Electricity, Rule,1978, the following rules shall be substituted namely:- Rule 6(A) - Family pension as calculated under MCS (Pension) Rules,1979 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 employee who died on or after 21.6.1990 after rendering not less than 1(one) year of service after confirmation. (ii) The payment of family pension shall be effective from 21.5.1993 and no arrears in cash or otherwise for the period from 21.6.90 to 20.5.93 shall be paid. Sd/-(R.R. Rashmi) Secretary (Finance),Govt. of Manipur.” But by another notification of the Government of Manipur being No.17/3/86-PIC: Imphal, the 22nd December, 1995, the explanation II came to be inserted in Rule 6(B) w.e.f. 6.6.1991. Sd/-(R.R. Rashmi) Secretary (Finance),Govt. of Manipur.” But by another notification of the Government of Manipur being No.17/3/86-PIC: Imphal, the 22nd December, 1995, the explanation II came to be inserted in Rule 6(B) w.e.f. 6.6.1991. The Explanation II reads as follows:- “Family pension as contemplated 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.” 7. From the bare perusal of the notifications dated 21.5.1993 and 8.9.1994, it is crystal clear that the writ petitioners of the above writ petitions in which the concerned work-charged employees who rendered not less than one year of service after confirmation and family members of work-charged employees who died on or after 21.6.90 after rendering not less than one year of service after confirmation, shall be entitled to family pension effective from 21.5.1993 and no arrears in cash or otherwise for the period from 21.6.90 to 20.5.93 shall be paid. The notification dated 22.12.1995 cannot taken away the right of those work-charged employees and whose family members to get the benefit of family pension on the basis of the Rules 1978 amended upto 8.9.1994. In other words, the notification dated 22.12.1995 by which explanation II was added to Rule 6(B) is come into retrospective effect from 6.6.91, shall be applicable only to the families of those work-charged employees who died on 6.6.1991 or thereafter, and if a work-charged employee had died on or after 6.6.1991, his/her family would only be entitled to family pension if he/she was a pensioner at the time of his/her death. On 6.6.1991 there may be cases in which a number of work-charged employees who are eligible for getting pension under the Rules 1978 but did not get pension because of lapses on the part of the Govt of Manipur or the concerned /competent authority.For the reasons discussed above and as held by the Apex Court in the Cases cited above, fixing of cut-off date as 6.6.1991 for the enjoyment of family pension under the rules by the work-charged employees and their families in the notification dated 22.12.1995 making the condition that the concerned work-charged employee should be the pensioners is arbitrary and violaltive of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. 8. After careful perusal and also after hearing the submissions of both the parties, I am of the considered view that the present writ petitions are squarely covered by the common judgment and order of this court (Division Bench) dated 1.10.2001. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to pay the family pension as per the “Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MID/Electricity, Manipur Rules,1978” by extending the benefits of the common judgments and orders of this court (Division Bench) dated 1.10.2001 and also for the reasons mentioned above to the present writ petitioners within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of this common judgment and order. No order as to costs.