Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1120 (GAU)

Accountant General v. Moirangthem Bobby Singh

2006-12-19

B.D.AGARWAL, T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT T.N.K. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. Kh. Binoykumar, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent/writ Petitioner. 2. The Appellant/Respondent, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.09.2003 passed in WP(C) No. 750 of 2003 wherein and whereunder the learned Single Judge had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District to hold an enquiry as to whether the writ Petitioner/Respondent, Shri Moirangthem Bobby Singh, aged about 26 years, is the son of the deceased Government servant, namely, Moirangthem Amuba Singh of Pishumthong Ningom Leirak, Imphal West and also to issue a certificate depending upon the enquiry report, and also the Respondent/writ Petitioner to submit a representation to the Respondent authority along with a fresh certificate of disability from a civil surgeon or a medical officer of the equivalent rank and the Respondent authority on receipt of the same shall pass appropriate order, filed this writ appeal. 3. Neglecting all the details, the precise brief which would suffice for deciding the present writ appeal is that the writ Petitioner/Respondent, M. Bobby Singh, aged about 26 years is the son of the deceased Government employee, Ms. Amuba Singh, who retired on superannuation on 30.06.1996. It is admitted case of both parties that Shri M. Amuba Singh was serving as a Section Officer, Grade- II in the power department, Government of Manipur and after his retirement on superannuation, he was drawing pension till his death on 12.02.2001. 4. After the death of Petitioner's father, M. Amuba Singh, the Petitioner's mother continued to get family pension till his mother died on 12.02.2003. It is stated that after the death of the Petitioner's mother, the Petitioner submitted his application for grant of pension as per Sub-rule (6) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 on the ground that the Petitioner had suffered from physical disability. The representation filed by the Petitioner for payment of pension as per Sub-rule (6) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 had been rejected on the ground that his name had not been mentioned in the Form No. 3 mentioned in the Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by the late Government employee. 5. The representation filed by the Petitioner for payment of pension as per Sub-rule (6) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 had been rejected on the ground that his name had not been mentioned in the Form No. 3 mentioned in the Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by the late Government employee. 5. It appears that being aggrieved by the order of the Appellant/Respondent rejecting the representation filed by the Petitioner for granting pension under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Respondent/writ Petitioner filed a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 750 of 2003 for a direction to the Respondents to pay the family pension as per Sub-rule (6) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the submission of all the parties as well as on perusal of the case of the writ Petitioner/Respondent in the writ petition supported by an affidavit and also the submission of the learned CGSC, finally disposed of the said writ petition being WP(C) No. 750 of 2003 by passing the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2003. 6. In the present writ appeal, the grounds taken for assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2003 are that: (i) In the PPO i.e. Pension Payment Order of the retired Government employee of the Petitioner's father i.e., M. Amuba Singh, the name of the writ Petitioner/Respondent is not included as one of the children of the government employee i.e., M. Amuba Singh; (ii) The name of the writ Petitioner/Respondent is also not mentioned in the Form No. 3 mentioned in the Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. (iii) There is no materials on record to show that the Respondent/writ Petitioner had suffered from physical disability mentioned in the Rule 54 of the CCS(Pension) Rules before he attained the age of 25 years. 7. It is now fairly well settled that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant. Right to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State has no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the pension is also property under Article 19(1)(f)and it is not saved by Sub-article (5) of Article 19. 8. Right to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State has no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the pension is also property under Article 19(1)(f)and it is not saved by Sub-article (5) of Article 19. 8. Regarding this settled position of law, we may refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court reported in the Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1409 and Anr. Constitution Bench reported in the case of D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 . 9. Regarding the first and second grounds, we, taking into consideration of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad (Supra) and D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India (Supra), are of the considered view that since right to receive pension is a property under Article31(1) and also a property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, mere lapse on the part of the writ Petitioner's father i.e. M. Amuba Singh, to mention the name of the writ Petitioner in Form No. 3 mentioned in Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rule and also mere lapse on the part of the concerned authority to mention the name of the writ Petitioner in the PPO of the deceased employee, i.e., Petitioner's father, M. Amuba Singh, the writ Petitioner's right to pension, cannot be denied. It is fairly well settled principle of law that constitutional right of a citizen under the Constitution of India cannot be denied on the mere administrative lapse of the concerned authority/person. 10. It is fairly well settled principle of law that constitutional right of a citizen under the Constitution of India cannot be denied on the mere administrative lapse of the concerned authority/person. 10. Regarding the third ground to the effect that in order to enjoy the pension as per Sub-rule (6) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the concerned person should suffer disability before she/he attains the age of 25 years, we have carefully applied our mind to Sub-rule (6) and proviso (i) and (ii) to Sub-rule (6) of the Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for easy reference, Sub-rule (6) and proviso (i) and (ii) of the Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are quoted hereunder: (6) The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows: (i) in the case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death or (ii) in the case of a son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years; and (iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of twenty-five years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier: Provided that if the son or daughter of a Government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind including mentally retarded or a physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty-five years the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life subject to the following conditions namely: (i) If such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the Government servant, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children in the order set out in Clause (iii) of sub-rule (8) of this rule until the last minor child attains the age of twenty-five years, and thereafter the family pension shall be resumed in favour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him/her for life; (ii) * * * * * * 11. It is fairly well settled that the legislature used every word for a meaningful purpose in enacting the legislation. It is fairly well settled that the legislature used every word for a meaningful purpose in enacting the legislation. Over and above, we are interpreting the beneficial legislation i.e. Sub-rule (6) of the Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and while interpreting the beneficial legislation, if two views are possible, one view, which is favourable to the person, for which the beneficial legislation is enacted, should be accepted. Going back to the present case, it is clear that the legislature willfully and meaningfully used the word "resume" in the Clause (i) to proviso to Sub-rule (6) of the Rule 54 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. Dictionary meaning of the word "resume" according to Webster's Third New International Dictionary is "to take up after interruption." 12. It is cardinal rule of construction that no word should be construed redundant or surplus in interpreting the provision of a statue or rule. [Ref: Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 17 ]. The Apex Court in State of Maharastra and Ors. v. Santosh Shanker Acharya, (2000) 7 SCC 463 held that it is too well known principle of construction of statute that the legislature engrafted every part of the statute for a purpose. The legislative intention is that every part of the statute should be given effect. Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the legislation will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. 13. From the perusal of the Clause (i) to proviso to Sub-rule (6) of the Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, we are of the considered view that the third ground of the present writ appeal that for enjoying the family pension under Sub-rule (6) of the Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, disability to earn living should occur before attaining the age of 25 years of the person concerned, cannot be accepted inasmuch as the pension under Sub-rule (6) of the Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 could be enjoyed even after interruption. 14. 14. Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2003 allowing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 750 of 2003 is not directly asking the Appellant/Respondent to pay the family pension as per Sub-rule (6) of the Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules but the learned Single Judge simply directed the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West District to cause an enquiry as to whether the Petitioner i.e., Respondent, is the son of the deceased Government servant, namely, M. Amuba Singh of Pishumthong Ningom Leirak, Imphal West and to issue a certificate depending on the report and also directing the writ Petitioner/Respondent to submit a fresh representation to the Respondent authority along with a fresh certificate of disability from a Civil Surgeon or a medical officer of the equivalent rank. 15. Taking into consideration of the case of the writ Petitioner/Respondent and also the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad (Supra) and in the case of D.S. Nakara (Supra) and also Sub-rule (6) of the Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, we are of the considered view that the Appellant/Respondent could not make out any material to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2003. Accordingly, this writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed