JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Ch. Robinchandra, the learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri K. Jagat, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri S. Rupachandra, the learned ASG appearing for the respondent No. 5. 2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner organization has prayed for issuing a direction to the respondents to grant pension to the retired work-charged employees and family pension to the members of the deceased work-charged employees under the provisions of the Terminal Benefits for Work-Charged Staffs of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and Electricity (Manipur) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the “The Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978”. 3.1. The facts as averred by the petitioner organization in the writ petition, are that the petitioner organization is an organization registered vide Registration No.734 of 2011 issued by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Manipur and formed by the Grade-III and IV work-charged employees of the PHE Department to espouse the cause of its members. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner organization on behalf of its 40 work-charged employees who had retired and some of them had died. 3.2. While in service, the said work-charged employees had served for more than 15 years after they having been converted to work-charged employees from being the Muster Roll employees in the year, 1999. They were terminated from service vide various orders issued by the Chief Engineer, PHED, during the period from the years 2011 to 2014, on account of the expiry of the work-charged employees or on attaining the age of their superannuation. The petitioner organization made several requests to the concerned authorities for grant of pension or the family pension as the case may be but to no effect and accordingly, the instant writ petition has been filed by it. 4. The petitioner organization made several requests to the concerned authorities for grant of pension or the family pension as the case may be but to no effect and accordingly, the instant writ petition has been filed by it. 4. Although an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has been filed, the averments made in the writ petition have not been controverted and the only stand of the respondent No.1 is that clause 6 of the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 provides for grant of terminal benefits to the permanent work-charged staff; that since the said work-charged employees are not the permanent work-charged employees, they are not entitled to pension and consequently, their family members are not entitled to family pension and moreover, they are converted from Muter Roll/Casual as one time policy with a rider that the posts being held by them, shall stand automatically abolished as and when they retire from service. 5. It may be true that initially the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 were contemplated to provide terminal benefits only to the permanent work-charged staff and there was no provision for grant of family pension. But by way of an amendment vide Notification dated 21-06-1990, Rule 6A was added wherein it is provided that family pension is admissible to the family members of the work-charged employees. Further amendment came to be made vide Notification dated 06-06-1991 adding Rule 6B which provides that terminal benefit is admissible to the work-charged employees who retired prior to 16-09-1978 but are living on the date of issue of the order and family pension to the family members of the work-charged employee who died prior to 21-06-1990 provided the family members are living on the date of issue of the order. From the conjoint reading of the said Rule 6A and 6B, it is evident that family pension is admissible to the family members of all the work-charged employees and it is nowhere provided therein that the terminal benefits shall be granted to the permanent work-charged employees only or the members of its family. 6. Shri Ch. From the conjoint reading of the said Rule 6A and 6B, it is evident that family pension is admissible to the family members of all the work-charged employees and it is nowhere provided therein that the terminal benefits shall be granted to the permanent work-charged employees only or the members of its family. 6. Shri Ch. Robinchandra, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that the issue involved herein is covered by the judgment and order dated 12-08-2010 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal bench in Writ Appeal No. 29 of 2009 wherein the husband of the petitioner therein was appointed as work-charged Assistant Meter Reader on 29-11-1980 and had expired while in service on 09-02-1988. When the petitioner therein approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of a writ petition, the learned Single Judge granted benefit of family pension to the petitioner therein who is the widow of Late Shri M. Khogendra Singh. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, an appeal being W.A. No.29 of 2009 was preferred by the State Government wherein referring to an earlier Division Bench Judgment, it was contended by the learned Senior Government Advocate that the service of the petitioner’s husband not being confirmed, she was not entitled to family pension, On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent therein submitted that the submission of the learned senior Government Advocate ought to be understood in the context of the Notification dated 08-09-1994 by which Rule 6A was substituted without any retrospective application. While refusing to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench has held: “10. Rule 6B which has been quoted above having not made any distinction between confirmed and permanent work-charged employees and those who are not confirmed work-charged employees, we are of the considered opinion that upon a reference to some other provisions, 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. 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-charge employees were provided by way of family pension would require confirmation of service of the deceased husband of the petitioner for the 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 employee who was appointed on 01-08-1959 was confirmed w.e.f. 05-03-1968 by order dated 09-01-1974 after his 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.” 7. The facts of the said case are similar to that of the present case and admittedly, the work-charged employees had served more than 15 years, although they had not been formally confirmed in their respective services. In this regard, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to have considerable force for the reason that the issue involved herein is covered by the said judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in the above case. The Hon’ble High Court has categorically observed that for grant of family pension, the confirmation of service is not necessary and in case the confirmation of service is required, the authority may do so by passing appropriate orders as had been done in many cases in the past. The Hon’ble High Court has categorically observed that for grant of family pension, the confirmation of service is not necessary and in case the confirmation of service is required, the authority may do so by passing appropriate orders as had been done in many cases in the past. It may be noted that while passing the said judgment and order, the Hon’ble High Court has referred to its earlier order wherein it found that the services of many work-charged employees were confirmed retrospectively and the services of some of them were confirmed even after their expiry. Therefore, in terms of the said judgment and order, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed by this court. 8. For the reasons stated herein above, the instant writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (a) The respondents shall calculate the pension or the family pension, as the case may be, and pay the pension to the retired work-charged employees and family pension to the members of the deceased work-charged employees, as per the list at Annexure-A/2, under the provisions of the Terminal Benefits for Work-Charged Staffs of PWD/IFCD/ PHED/MI and Electricity (Manipur) Rules, 1978 on or before 30-11-2016 and continue to pay the same regularly; (b) The respondents shall pay the arrears of pension or the family pension, as the case may be, on the basis of the calculation so made as per direction (a) above on or before 31-12-2016, failing which the arrears will carry an interest @ Rs.9% per annum with effect from 01-01-2017 till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs.