Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 828 (GAU)

Chingzam, Manipur v. State of Manipur and Ors

2006-09-01

T.NANDA KUMAR SINGH

body2006
None appears for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Reisang, learned GA appears for respondent nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr.N.Ibotombi, learned CGSC for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5. [2] By this writ petition, the petitioner is asking for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner under the Terminal Benefit for the work-charged staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI & Electricity Manipur Rules, 1978. From perusal of the case of the petitioner, in the present writ petition supported by an affidavit and also the earlier judgment and order of this court (Division Bench) dated 1.10.2001 passed in WA No.154 of 1998 & batch and judgment and order of this court dated 01.03.2005 passed in WP(C) No.1445 of 2003 and batch, this court is of the considered view that there is no point in lingering the present petition. [3] The factual panorama of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner's husband late Damzapao was appointed as Work charged Khalashi vide CE (PWD) Office Order No.705 dated 11.10.1979 and EE/CHD Order No.144 dated 2.11.1979. It is said that in pursuance of the said order, the petitioner joined as work charged Khalashi. Later on the work charged appointment of the petitioner as Khalashi had been confirmed vide order dated 10.4.1989. It is said that the petitioner's husband died on 12.8.1988. Later on under office order No.53 dated 28.8.1988 issued by the Executive Engineer, Churachandpur, service of the petitioner's husband had been terminated w.e.f. 13.8.1988. [4] The Government of Manipur framed the Rules called “Terminal Benefit for the work-charged staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI & Electricity Manipur Rules, 1978”. It is also fact that the said Rules i.e. Terminal Benefit for the work-charged staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI & Electricity Manipur Rules, 1978 had been amended from time to time. By an order of the Government of Manipur dated 21.6.1990 the Terminal Benefit for the work-charged staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI & Electricity Manipur Rules, 1978 had been amended by inserting the Rule 6(A)-Family Pension as calculated under the Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977, as amended from time to time in the said Terminal Benefit Rules, 1978. By an order of the Government of Manipur dated 21.6.1990 the Terminal Benefit for the work-charged staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI & Electricity Manipur Rules, 1978 had been amended by inserting the Rule 6(A)-Family Pension as calculated under the Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977, as amended from time to time in the said Terminal Benefit Rules, 1978. Subsequently by another order of the Government of Manipur dated 6.6.1991 the said Terminal Benefit Rules was again amended by inserting Rule 6(B) which reads as follows: “Rule 6(B)- Terminal Benefit shall also admissible to the work charged staff/employee who retired prior to 18.9.78 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” had been inserted. And as the said order of Government of Manipur dated 6.6.1991 is followed by the corrigendum datd 21.6.1991. [5] The further case of the petitioner is that again by a notification of the Government of Manipur being No.6/3/70-W(Pt)A dated 21.5.1993 the then existing Rule 6(A) had been substituted by another new Rule 6(A) which reads as follows: “(i) The benefit shall be available to the family of work charged employees who rendered not less than 1(one) year of service after confirmation. (ii) This amendment would have prospective effect only and no arrears shall be paid.” The case of the petitioner is that since her husband died on 12.8.1988 the petitioner would be entitled to get family pension under the Terminal Benefit Rules, 1978 by virtue of the newly inserted Rule 6(B) inasmuch as the petitioner's husband died prior to 21.6.1990 and she was also living at that time. [6] From perusal of the judgment and order of this Court (Division Bench) dated 1.10.2001 passed in WA No.154 of 1998 and batch, this court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner is squarely covered. [6] From perusal of the judgment and order of this Court (Division Bench) dated 1.10.2001 passed in WA No.154 of 1998 and batch, this court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner is squarely covered. The relevant portion of the earlier judgment and order of this court (Division Bench) dated 1.10.2001 passed in WA No.154 of 1998 and batch is quoted hereunder: “ According to our analysis of the provisions regarding the admissibility of family pension such an employee who had died on or before 21.6.90 would be governed by Rule 6(A) which came to be inserted on 21.6.90 or the second part of Rule 6(B) which was inserted on 6.6.91 which according to us is the same rule 6(A) inserted on 21.6.90. For those families whose next keen i.e. permanent employees, who had died on or before 21.6.90 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 21.5.93 which was specifically made prospective. Accordingly these writ petitioners would be entitled to family pension under rule 6(A) whose bread earners i.e. employees had died on or before 21.6.90. The bread earners (employees) in the following writ petitions had died prior to 21.6.1990. 1. Civil Rule No.62/98 out of which Writ appeal No.154/98 has arisen Date of death: 6.3.1990. 2. .. .. . 3. .. .. . 4. .. .. . 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 4 (four) cases would be entitled even without the condition of one year service by the employees after confirmation as that was introduced only on 21.5.1993. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions appeals in the aforesaid four cases.” [7] The earlier judgment and order of this court (Division Bench) dated 1.10.2001 passed in WA No.154/1998 and batch had also been followed by this court by passing common judgment and order dated01.03.2005 in WP(C) No.1445/03 and batch. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions appeals in the aforesaid four cases.” [7] The earlier judgment and order of this court (Division Bench) dated 1.10.2001 passed in WA No.154/1998 and batch had also been followed by this court by passing common judgment and order dated01.03.2005 in WP(C) No.1445/03 and batch. [8] Having regard to the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the benefit of the judgment and order of this Court (Division Bench) dated 1.10.2001 passed in WA No.154 of 1998 and batch and the common judgment and order of this court dated 1.3.2005 passed in WP(C) No.1445 of 2003 and batch shall also be extended to the petitioner of the present writ petition. [9] Such being the situation, the respondents are directed to pay family pension to the petitioner as per the Terminal Benefit for the work-charged staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI & Electricity Manipur Rules, 1978 within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the judgment and order. With the above direction, writ petition is allowed.