Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 36 (MAN)

State of Manipur v. S. Rajnikanta Singh

2018-08-06

N.KOTISWAR SINGH, RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Momota Devi Oinam, learned Addl. AG assisted by Ms. Beedyasaree M., learned Jr. GA for the State appellants and heard also Mr. Serto T. Kom, for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned CGC for the Respondent No. 2. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 04.07.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 720 of 2005 by which the learned Single Judge of the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court directed the appellants to extend the benefit of the judgments passed in WA No. 154/98 and WP(C) No. 1445/2003 for payment of family pension under the Terminal Benefit for Work Charged Staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI/Electricity Rules, 1978. 3. To deal with this appeal, only the necessary and relevant facts may be mentioned. 4. The writ petitioner's father (Late) S. Bokul Singh was serving in the Electricity Department, Government of Manipur having initially appointed as a Muster Roll Chowkidar. Thereafter, his service was converted as work charged Chowkidar vide office order No. 28 dated 05.01.1981 issued by the Chief Engineer, Electricity Department While serving as a work charged Chowkidar he died on 11.11.1987. It may be stated the Government of Manipur introduced certain terminal benefits to be given to work charged staffs of various engineering departments by framing the rules called, "The Terminal Benefits for Work Charged Staffs of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI/Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978". The petitioner made the claim for payment of family pension on account of his father's service under the aforesaid Terminal Benefit Rules, 1978 as amended from time to time, which was allowed by the Ld. Single Judge vide order dated 04.07.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 720 of 2005 directing payment of family pension under the aforesaid Terminal Benefit Rules, 1978. 5. Though the State Respondents did not file any affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition, in this appeal, the State appellants have taken the plea that as per subsequent amendments brought in the aforesaid Terminal Benefits Rules, family pension is payable only if the worked charged employee was a permanent and retired at the age of 55 years or rendered at least 30 years of service. It is the case of the State appellants that the petitioner's father (Late) S. Bokul Singh who died on 11.11.1987 while in service was not a confirmed work charged employee. It is the case of the State appellants that the petitioner's father (Late) S. Bokul Singh who died on 11.11.1987 while in service was not a confirmed work charged employee. It has been contended that the writ petitioner never claimed in the petition that his father was a confirmed employee nor any order has been annexed to show that his father was a confirmed employee. Accordingly, it has been contended by State appellants that since the petitioner's father was neither confirmed nor a permanent work charged employee, he is not entitled to any terminal benefit under the aforesaid rules. On the other hand, it is the plea of the respondent herein, the writ petitioner, that the petitioner is entitled to family pension under the aforesaid rules in terms of Rule 6 (A) which does not mention of any stipulation that such work charged employee must be confirmed or permanent to get such benefit. 6. Further, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, has relied the decision rendered by this Court in WA No. 2 of 2014 in which it was held that when Rule 6 (A) was introduced on 21.06.1990 it provided no such condition that the concerned employee should be a permanent or confirmed employee. 7. As we proceed to examine this appeal, it may be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978. Rule 6 provides for grant of pensionary benefit and gratuity. Rule 6 reads as follows:- "6. 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 employee who retired at the age of 55 years and has at least 30 years service to his credit. (b) or to a permanent work 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 Service (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 latter. (ii) Gratuity calculated under the Manipur Civil Service (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 latter. (b) he had rendered 15 years of service before he was incapacitated for further service." Subsequently, Rule 6(A) relating to family pension was inserted on 21.6.1990, which reads as follows:- "Government of Manipur Secretariat Works Department ---- Orders by the Governor, Manipur Imphal, the 21st June, 1990. No. 6/3/70-W(Pt): As the Governor of Manipur is pleased to make the following rules to further amend the Terminal Benefit for Work Charged staff of PWD, PHED, Ml and Electricity Rules, 1978. (i) These rules may be called the Terminal Benefit for Work Charged staff of PWD, PHED, MI and Electricity Rules, 1978. (ii) These orders shall come into force with immediate effect. (iii) The following shall be added as Rule 6(A) below Rule 6(iii)(B):- "Rule 6(A)- Family Pension as calculated under the Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time." By orders etc. Sd/- (M. Tuizar) Commissioner (Works), Govt. of Manipur. Memo No. 6/3/70-W(Pt)A: Imphal, the 21st June, 1990." Rule 6(B) on which reliance has been made by the State appellants was added to the aforesaid Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 vide order dated 06.06.1981 and it reads as follows: "Government of Manipur Secretariat: Works Department ----- 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 amendment in Terminal Benefit for Work Charge staff of PWD/PHED/MI and Electricity Rules, 1991. These rules may be called the Terminal Benefit for Work Charged staff of PWD/PHED/MI and Electricity Rules. The following shall be added as Rule 6(B) below Rule 6(A):- "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." By orders in the name of the Governor: Sd/- (M. Tuizar) Commissioner (Works), Govt. of Manipur. Memo No. 6/3/70-W(Pt)A: Imphal, the 6th June, 1991." 8. of Manipur. Memo No. 6/3/70-W(Pt)A: Imphal, the 6th June, 1991." 8. This Court had the occasion to deal with the scope of both Rule 6(A) and Rule 6 (B) in the aforesaid WA No. 2 of 2014 which was disposed of on 19.06.2018, relied on by the present respondent, the writ petitioner. In that case, this Court had held that to avail the benefit of family pension in respect of those employees who died on or before 21.6.1990, such employee need not be a confirmed as permanent work charged employee. Accordingly, we feel it appropriate to reproduce the observations made by this Court in the said writ appeal in order to avoid repetition of the same exercise, which reads as follows: "[8] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record including writ petition filed before this Court. The claim of the petitioner as evident from the pleadings in the writ petition, is based on Rule 6(A) added to the aforesaid Terminal Benefits for Work Charged Staff of PWD/IFCD/PHE/MI/Electricity, Manipur Rules 1978 vide notification dated 21.6.1990 which provides that family pension as calculated under the Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time. Rule 6(A) reads as follows:- Orders by the Governor, Manipur Imphal, the 21st June, 1990 No. 6/3/70-W(Pt.): The Governor of Manipur is pleased to make the following rules to further amend the Terminal Benefit for Work charged staff of PWD, PHED, MI & Electricity Rules, 1978. (i) These rules may be called the Terminal Benefits for Work Charged staff of PWD, PHED, MI & Electricity Rules, 1978. (ii) These orders shall come into force with immediate effect. (iii) The following shall be added as Rule 6(A) below Rule (iii)(B):- "Rule 6(A)-Family Pension as calculated under the Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time." By orders etc. Sd/- (M. Tuizar) Commissioner (Works) Govt. of Manipur." 9. As can be seen, subsequently, many amendments have been made to the aforesaid Terminal Benefit Rules, 1978. It is true that the aforesaid Terminal Benefit Rules, 1978 when these were originally made were meant for permanent work charged staffs as mentioned in Rule 6 thereof. Sd/- (M. Tuizar) Commissioner (Works) Govt. of Manipur." 9. As can be seen, subsequently, many amendments have been made to the aforesaid Terminal Benefit Rules, 1978. It is true that the aforesaid Terminal Benefit Rules, 1978 when these were originally made were meant for permanent work charged staffs as mentioned in Rule 6 thereof. However, when the aforesaid new Rule 6 (A) was inserted on 21.6.1990, the rule making authorities did not specifically mention that the said newly inserted Rule 6(A) would be applicable to permanent or confirmed work charged staffs only, by keeping silent on the status of the work charged employee covered by the new Rule 6(A). It is the case of the State appellants that even if the newly added Rule 6(A) is silent on the status of the work charged employee, it has to be read as such, in the context of the entire rules and cannot be read in isolation. In that view of the matter, since the Terminal Benefits Rules framed are meant for permanent work charged employees, the newly inserted Rule 6(A) is also meant for permanent work charged employees. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the State seems to be reasonable, plausible and quite attractive, we are not able to accept the said plea for the reasons elaborated hereinafter. 10. It may be noted that the aforesaid Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 underwent several amendments subsequently after insertion of the aforesaid Rule 6(A) on 21.6.1990. Another Rule 6(B) was added below Rule 6(A) which provides that terminal benefits shall be admissible to the permanent work charged staffs/who retired prior to 18.9.78 and also family pension to the families of work charged employees who died prior to 21.06.1990 but are living on the date of issue of this order. Thus, this newly added Rule 6(B) specifically mentions that it would be applicable to permanent work charged staff, which reads as follows:- "Orders by the Governor, Manipur Imphal, the 6th June, 1991 No. 6/3/70-W(Pt.): The Governor of Manipur is pleased to make the amendment in Terminal Benefit for Work Charged staff of PWD, PHED, MI & Electricity Rules, 1978. (i) These rules may be called the Terminal Benefits for Work Charged staff of PWD, PHED, MI & Electricity Rules, 1978. (i) These rules may be called the Terminal Benefits for Work Charged staff of PWD, PHED, MI & Electricity Rules, 1978. (ii) The following shall be added as Rule 6(B) below Rule 6(A):- "Rule 6(B)-Terminal Benefit shall also admissible to the worked charged staff/employees who retired prior to 18.9.78 and also family pension to the families of work charged employees who died prior to 21.06.1990 but are living on the date of issue of this order." By orders etc. Sd/- (M. Tuizar) Commissioner (Works) Govt. of Manipur" 11. Further changes were made again on 21.5.1993 by which the Rule 6(A) which was inserted on 21.6.1990, was amended by which additional conditions were added. While the earlier provision under the old Rule 6(A) providing for Family Pension as calculated under Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1979 as amended from time to time remained, by the said amendment it was subjected to two more conditions viz, i) the benefits shall be available to the family of any worked charged employee who died on or after 21.6.1990 after rendering not less than 1 (one) year of service after confirmation and; ii) the amendment will have prospective effect and no arrears shall be paid. The said Rule 6(A) was further amended on 8.9.1994 which provided that payment of family pension shall be effective from 21.5.1993 and no arrears in cash or otherwise for the period from 21.6.1990 to 20.5.1993 shall be paid. Thus, after amendment of the said Rule 6(A) on 21.5.1993, it was specifically provided that it would be applicable to work charged employees after one year of confirmation. Hence after the amendment of Rule 6(A) in 1993, unless a work charged employee has been confirmed and has rendered one year service after confirmation, the terminal benefits will not be available. Thereafter, another amendment to the Rules was made on 22.12.1995 adding further conditions to the entitlement of the terminal benefits. Accordingly, it may be noted that while Rule 6(A) was initially added vide order dated 21.6.1990, there was no such condition of requirement of the employee being permanent or confirmed, which condition was introduced in the subsequent amendments made on 21.5.1993 and 8.9.1994. Rule 6(B) was also amended on 22.12.95 making conditions for entitlement of terminal benefit more stringent. Accordingly, it may be noted that while Rule 6(A) was initially added vide order dated 21.6.1990, there was no such condition of requirement of the employee being permanent or confirmed, which condition was introduced in the subsequent amendments made on 21.5.1993 and 8.9.1994. Rule 6(B) was also amended on 22.12.95 making conditions for entitlement of terminal benefit more stringent. Therefore, we endorse the submission made by the writ petitioner/respondent herein that when Rule 6(A) was initially introduced on 21.6.1990, it did not provide for any such conditions, including the condition of requirement of being a permanent or confirmed work charged employee. Hence, this denial of family pension to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's husband was not a confirmed employee, cannot be accepted. 12. It may be also stated that the subsequent amendments were effected after the petitioner's husband had died and as such, these amendments, having no retrospective effect, cannot affect the right which had accrued to the petitioner pursuant to the insertion of Rule 6 (A) on 21.6.1990 which did not provide for any condition. 13. It may be also mentioned that the rule making authorities though subsequently amended Rule 6(A) as well as Rule 6(B) and also inserted other conditions to make the rules applicable to permanent/confirmed worked charged employees, the Court had taken a liberal view of the aforesaid provisions as dealt in W.A. No. 154/1998, W.A. No. 156/1998, W.A. No. 157/1998, W.A. No. 135/1998, W.A. No. 155/1998 and W.A. No. 102/2000 disposed of by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court on 01.10.2001. Thereafter, another Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court had the occasion to interpret the provisions of Rule 6(B) in W.A. No. 29 of 2009 which was disposed of on 12.08.2010 by holding that since the expressions "confirmation and permanent" are not found in Rule 6(B) as it was initially added to the Rules, the same cannot be read into the said Rule 6(B). The Division Court made the observation that there were many work charged employees whose services were confirmed retrospectively and in many cases, the worked charged employees were confirmed after their expiry. The Division Court made the observation that there were many work charged employees whose services were confirmed retrospectively and in many cases, the worked charged employees were confirmed after their expiry. Accordingly, the Division Bench held that it cannot be said that the benefits to which the families of the worked charged employees were provided by way of family pension would require confirmation of service and if such confirmation is required, the authorities may do so by passing appropriate order. The Division Bench further observed that the confirmation of service or permanence in service by issuance of specific order is always an uncertainty and in normal circumstances, an employee after rendering a particular length of service is entitled to get his service confirmed or permanent. Thus, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court interpreted Rule 6(B) by holding that to get the benefit of the newly added Rule 6(B), the work charged employee need not be confirmed or permanent. Taking a cue from the aforesaid decision, we can also say that as the expressions "confirmed" or "permanent" are not used in Rule 6(A) as was added initially, we can not read these words in Rule 6(A) to deny the benefit to the petitioner. 14. It may be observed that the original Terminal Benefits Rules framed in 1978 had undergone many amendments referred to and discussed above. The aforesaid Rules have been framed to give certain benefits to the employees belonging to work charged establishment and not to regular employees. Thus, the aforesaid Rules are meant to be beneficial to the work charged employees. Now it is well settled that while interpreting any beneficial law, if two views are possible, such view as would benefit the employees ought to be preferred. Thus, the aforesaid Rules are meant to be beneficial to the work charged employees. Now it is well settled that while interpreting any beneficial law, if two views are possible, such view as would benefit the employees ought to be preferred. Therefore, in absence of a specific provision under Rule 6(A) that it would apply only to confirmed or permanent work charged employee as introduced on 21.6.1990, on the basis of which the petitioner has claimed the benefit of family pension and in the light of the liberal interpretation given to Rule (B) by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court as in the case of W.A. No. 29 of 2009, we are also of the view that the newly added Rule 6(A) on 21.6.1990 as it stood, cannot be confined to only the permanent or confirmed employees as contended by the State appellants and can be made applicable to non-permanent or non-confirmed work charged employees, as in the case of the petitioner's husband." 9. We would like to mention that the petitioner's father died while in service on 11.11.1987 before the amendments were made to the Terminal Benefits Rules of 1978 by bringing in Rule 6(A) and Rule 6(B). We are of the view that when the petitioner's father died on 11.11.1987, his case could not have been covered for grant of family pension under the aforesaid Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 as the rules stood then. However, when the amendment to the aforesaid Terminal Benefits Rules was made in the year 1990 by adding Rule 6 (A) vide order dated 21.06.1990 the petitioner's father case would be covered by the newly added Rule 6(A) for the purpose of grant of family pension and once the right to receive family pension has accrued under the added provision of Rule 6 (A), such benefit cannot be deprived on the basis of subsequent amendments that may be made, as the subsequent amendments would have only the prospective affect and not retrospective effect unless specifically provided so. 10. It may be also mentioned that the scope of Rule 6(A), 6(B) and other amendments made to the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1987 had been also considered by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in WA No. 154/1998 and others, decided on 01.10.2001 on which the appellants also have placed reliance. 10. It may be also mentioned that the scope of Rule 6(A), 6(B) and other amendments made to the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1987 had been also considered by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in WA No. 154/1998 and others, decided on 01.10.2001 on which the appellants also have placed reliance. On proper examination of the aforesaid judgment and order rendered in WA No. 154/1998, it would be seen that the observations made by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in the aforesaid writ appeal supports the case of the respondent, the writ petitioner herein, rather than the case of the appellants. The relevant portions of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: "Before coming with the group of the cases, some provisions of the Rules called the Terminal Benefit for Work Charge staff of PWD, IFCD, PHED, MI and 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 provided for the benefit which are available to the permanent work charged staff. Rule 6 is in the following terms: "6. 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 employee who retired at the age of 55 years and has at least 30 years service to his credit. (b) or to a permanent work 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 Service (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 latter. (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 the Notification dated 21.6.1990. (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 the 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 mended from time to time." The aforesaid rule 6(A) came into force with immediate effect, i.e. the date of publication (21.6.1990) 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 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 21.06.1990 but are living on the date of issue of this order." Rule 60(A) (Supra) which was introduced on 21.6.1990 further came to be substituted on 21.5.1993, which reads as under:- "1. (i) These rules may he called the Terminal Benefit for Work Charged staff of PWD, IFCD, PHED, MI and Electricity 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 rules 6 A of the Terminal Benefit for Work Charged staff of PWD, IFCD, PHED, Ml and Electricity Rules, 1978. Rule 6(A) family pension as calculated under the Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time subject to the following condition:- (i) The benefit shall be available to the family of work charged employee 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." Yet again, Rule 6(A) further came to be substituted on 8.9.1994. The same reads as under: "1. (i) These rules shall be called the Terminal Benefit for Work Charge staff of PWD, IFCD, PHED, MI and Electricity Rules, 1994. (ii) They shall come into force from the date of publication in the official Gazette. 2. The same reads as under: "1. (i) These rules shall be called the Terminal Benefit for Work Charge staff of PWD, IFCD, PHED, MI and Electricity Rules, 1994. (ii) They shall come into force from the date of publication in the official Gazette. 2. In Rule 6(A) of the Terminal Benefit for Work Charge staff of PWD, IFCD, PHED, MI and Electricity Rules, 1978, the following rules shall be substituted namely: Rule 6(A)- Family pension as calculated under MCS(Pension) Rules, 1978 as amended from time to time subject to the following condition:- (i) The benefit shall be available to the family of any permanent work charged employee died while in service on or after 21.6.1990 after rendering not less than 1 (one) year of service 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 21.6.90 to 20.5.93 shall be paid." The following Explanation-II came to be inserted in Rules 6(B) (Supra) on 22.12.1991. Explanation-II to rules 6(B) is in the following terms:- Explanation-II Family Pension are 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. Note : The above Explanation-1 and II shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 6.6.91. 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 family of a work charged employee which was to be calculated under the Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1997 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. 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 18.8.78 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 ago prior to 21.6.1990 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 in as much 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 21.6.90. In other words, the admissibility of family pension was already there on 21.6.90. 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 admissibility of family pension subject to the following condition: The permanent work charged employee before his death should have rendered at 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 21.5.93 and would not be applicable to those families who might have already become eligible for family pension under the pre existing rules. The further condition which were laid down vide notification dated 8.9.94 for admissibility of family pension under rule 6(A) were for those families of a permanent work charged employee 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. 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 on 21.5.1993. The notification dated 12.12.1995 (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 work charged employee who was a pensioner at the time of death. In other words,.. this would be applicable only to the families of those work charged employee 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." 11. In the aforesaid analysis of the Rules by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, it was never stated that to enjoy the benefits under Rule 6 (A) and Rule 6 (B), the work charged employee must be a permanent or confirmed one. In fact, such condition that the work charged employee must be a permanent and other conditions attached, were brought in by subsequent amendments made to Rule 6(A) in 1993 which will be not applicable in respect of those work charged employees who died on or before 21.06.1990 when Rule 6(A) was added for the first time as referred to above. Rule 6(B) also provides for grant of family pension to the families of work-charged employee who died prior to 21.6.1990. The fact remains that the petitioner's father died on 11.11.1987 which prior to 21.6.1990 and is thus covered by Rules 6(A) and 6(B). For the aforesaid reason, it is irrelevant whether the petitioner's father was a confirmed work-charged employee or not for the purpose of availing the benefit of family pension on his account under Rules 6(A) and 6(B). 12. In the light of the decisions of this Court as well as by the Gauhati High Court on these issues referred to above, we hold that the case of the writ petitioner for grant of family pension under the aforesaid Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 will be covered by Rule 6(A) and Rule 6(B) as were inserted on 21.06.1990 and 6.6.1991 respectively. The subsequent amendments made to the Rules which brought in conditions of permanency of the service etc. cannot affect the accrued right by virtue of Rule 6(A) and 6(B) which provide for giving family pension in respect of such work charged employees who died prior to 21.6.1990. 13. Accordingly, we are of the view that the present appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed with the direction to the State appellants to grant family pension to the petitioners as directed by the Ld. Single Judge, vide order dated 04.07.2005 passed in WP (C) No. 720 of 2005.