Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 110 (MAN)

Kh. Chaoba Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-06-14

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2021 issued by the first respondent regarding payment of increased pension/family pension on revision of pay from 01.11.2010 and to direct the respondents to pay the revised pension with effect from 1.10.2009 instead of 1.11.2010 to the petitioners 1 to 13; with effect from 1.3.2010 instead of 1.11.2010 to the petitioners 14 to 16; with effect from 1.7.2010 instead of 1.11.2010 to the 17th petitioner and with effect from 1.10.2009 to the petitioners 18 and 19 instead of 1.11.2020as has been done in the case of other State Government pensioners. 2. Heard Mr.S.Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Y.Ashang, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are retired teachers/equivalent cadre of the Government Colleges under the Department of Higher and Technical Education. By a notification dated 5.5.2010 issued by the Finance Department, the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 [for short, 'the Rules of 2010'} came into force notionally from 1.10.2006 with cash payment from 1.4.2010. After introduction of the Rules of 2010, the State Government issued an Office Memorandum dated 5.5.2010 modifying the Rules regulating pension/family pension etc. The second respondent issued an order dated 20.9.2021 for grant of arrears of pension/family pension in respect of those Government employees who retired or expired prior to 1.10.2009 for 6 months from 1.10.2009 to 31.3.2010 in two equal installment subject to the condition that the arrears of pension/family pension during the period from 1.1.2006 to 30.9.2009 should be only the difference between the revised basic pension/basic family pension and the pre-revised basic pension/family pension plus dearness allowance. 4. Further case of the petitioners is that an order dated 12.8.2011 was issued revising the scale of pay of different categories of the College Teachers and the said order so speaks about the applicability of the Rules relating to pension, family pension, gratuity and encashment of leave salary/leave of any kind ex-gratia compensation, provident fund etc. as applicable to the State Government employees to the College teachers. In fact the petitioners have enjoyed the fruits of the order dated 12.8.2011 after retirement from service. However, the State Government paid the revised pension with effect from 1.11.2010 instead with effect from 1.4.2010. as applicable to the State Government employees to the College teachers. In fact the petitioners have enjoyed the fruits of the order dated 12.8.2011 after retirement from service. However, the State Government paid the revised pension with effect from 1.11.2010 instead with effect from 1.4.2010. The first respondent issued impugned Office Memorandum stating that the revised/increased pension in respect of College teachers will be effect from 1.11.2020. According to the petitioners, the State Government has not paid the revised pension with effect from 1.10.2009 to the petitioners though the same has been paid in the case of other State Government pensioners. 5. Assailing the impugned Office Memorandum, Mr. Salam Samarjeet, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are retired State Government employees and that since the revised pay scale with effect from 1.4.2010, though extended to other State Government pensioners, has not been extended to the retired College teachers, including the petitioners (now re-designated/equivalent grades), the All Manipur Retired Government College Teachers' Association submitted a representation on 9.9.2011 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister to redress their grievance. He would submit that instead of redressing their grievance for payment of revised pension with effect from 1.4.2010, the first respondent issued an Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 stating that the revised/increased pension in respect of the College teachers will be effective from 1.11.2010. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that in respect of other State Government pensioners who retired or expired prior to 1.10.2009, the second respondent issued another order on 20.9.2011 granting arrears of pension/family pension for six months from 1.10.2009 to 31.3.2009 in two equal instalment subject to the condition that the arrears of pension/family pension should be only the different between the revised basic pension/basic family pension and the pre-revised basic pension/basic family pension plus dearness allowance. Pursuant to the order dated 20.9.2011, the Accountant General issued a letter dated 5.10.2011 informing all the Treasury Officers of the State for payment of arrears of pension/family pension for six months from 1.10.2009 to 31.3.2010. 7. The learned counsel urged that the revision of pay scale in respect of College teachers vide order dated 12.8.2011 clearly states that the Rules relating to pension/family pension as applicable to other State Government pensioners will also be applicable to the retired/expired College teachers and as such the State Government is duty bound to treat the petitioners equally with other State Government pensioners. The non-extension of benefits granted to other State Government pensioners relating to payment of revised pension to the petitioners is nothing but an unreasonable classification amongst for equals. Thus, the petitioners are also entitled to enjoy the revised pension with effect from 1.10.2009 as has been given to other State Government pensioners instead of 1.11.2010. He would submit the clarification given by the impugned Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 insofar as it relates to the effective date for payment of revised pension to the retired College teachers is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same is not acceptable in the eye of law. 8. The learned counsel next submitted that in a similar case being W.P.(C) No.145 of 2013, this Court vide order dated 30.10.2015 directed the State Government to pay the revised pension with effect from 1.4.2010 and also other benefits as mentioned in the Office Memorandum dated 5.5.2010 to the retired College teachers. By the order dated 20.9.2011, the said writ petition was allowed by directing the State Government to extend all other benefits including arrears. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the State has preferred W.A.No.55 of 2016 and a Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. Against which, Civil Appeal No.2681 of 2022 was preferred and by the judgment dated 31.3.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench, thereby restoring the order of the learned Single Judge. Since the case of the petitioners is covered by the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.145 of 2013, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for similar benefit be extended to the petitioners also. 9. The respondents have not filed any counter. However, Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioners are not similarly situated persons and that the benefit given in W.P.(C) No.145 of 2013, affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2681 of 2022, cannot be extended to the petitioners. 10. Admittedly, nothing has been produced by the respondents to show that the petitioners are not similarly situated persons. On the other hand, the petitioners have proved that they are the similarly situated persons. 10. Admittedly, nothing has been produced by the respondents to show that the petitioners are not similarly situated persons. On the other hand, the petitioners have proved that they are the similarly situated persons. In fact, the impugned Office Memorandum was assailed in W.P.(C) No.145 of 2013 and the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that when the issue arose for giving retirement benefits, the authorities had issued the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 depriving certain retiral benefits which are mentioned in the Office Memorandum dated 5.5.2010 and, accordingly, the petitioners therein are entitled to the cash payment/actual benefits from 1.4.2010. More particularly, in view of the specific stipulation in the order for revision of pay dated 12.8.2011 in which it has been clearly mentioned that rules relating to family pension, gratuity and encashment of leave, ex-gratia compensation, provident fund and new pension scheme now in force etc. as applicable to other State Government employees shall be applicable to the teachers/non-teaching staff whose pay scales are fixed under the said order dated 12.8.2011. 11. The petitioners contended that since the revision of pay scale dated 12.8.2011 stipulates that insofar as the pensionary benefits, same will be as enjoyed by other employees of the State Government and since the Office Memorandum dated 5.5.2010 specifically mentioned the effective dates of the benefits to be enjoyed by the employees of the State Government, the same should also be made applicable to the petitioners, which, however, has not been done by the respondent authorities while issuing the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011. 12. While restoring and affirming the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.10.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No.145 of 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '16. We are unable to agree with the main reasoning of the Division bench that by giving the appellants the benefit of revised pension with effect from 1st April 2010 an anomalous situation would arise as serving staff's) of higher educational institutions could be getting the benefit of such revision from 1st November 2010. The State has made conscious decision to delink the retirees from the service conditions guiding the serving staffs of the concerned institutions and placed them in the retirement rules meant for those in the Manipur State Service. The State has made conscious decision to delink the retirees from the service conditions guiding the serving staffs of the concerned institutions and placed them in the retirement rules meant for those in the Manipur State Service. In such a situation, we do not think the anomaly pointed out in the judgment under appeal could be the guiding factor for fixing the date of entitlement to revised pension benefits specified by the Service Rules. The Office Memorandum of 24th December 2011 though projected as an instrument to clarify a subsisting anomaly to an Office Memorandum having statutory strength, in reality encroaches upon acquired or vested right of the retirees to get such benefit from 1st April 2010. Such 'clarificatory order' cannot be permitted to overrirde an Order having statutory strength. We accordingly hold that the appellants shall be entitled to receive revised pension with effect from 1st April 2010, considering the provisions of Clause 7 of the order dated 12th August 2011. The Office Memorandum of 24th December 2011 would not have any binding effect so far as entitlement of the appellants to receive revised pension from 1st April 2010 is concerned. 17. Under the circumstances, the judgment under appeal is set aside. We restore and affirm the judgment of the Single Judge dated 30th October 2015. 18. The appeal is accordingly allowed.' 13. As stated supra, the challenge in the instant writ petition is to quash the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 and to direct the respondents to pay the revised pension with effect from 1.10.2009 instead of 1.11.2010 in case of the petitioners 1 to 3 and with effect from 1.3.2010 in case of the petitioners 14 to 16 and with effect from 1.7.2010 in case of the petitioner No.17 and with effect from 1.10.2009 to the petitioners 18 and 19 instead of 1.11.2020. 14. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal No.2681 of 2022 dated 31.3.2022 held that the impugned Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 would not have any binding effect so far as entitlement of the appellants in that case to receive the revised pension from 1.4.2010, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would squarely applies to the case on hand. That apart, no more discussion in regard to the impugned Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 is required as the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the said Office Memorandum cannot be permitted to override an order having statutory strength. 15. Applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2681 of 2022 dated 31.03.2022 to this case as the petitioners are similarly situated persons as that of the appellants in the said Civil Appeal, the impugned Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 is liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, a) the writ petition is allowed; b) the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 issued by the first respondent qua clarification No.1 i.e., payment of increased pension/family pension on revision of pay from 1.11.2010 is set aside; c) the respondents are directed to pay the revised pension with effect from 1.10.2009 to the petitioners 1 to 13 instead of 1.11.2010; with effect from 1.3.2010 to the petitioners 14 to 16 instead of 1.11.2010; with effect from 1.7.2010 to the 17th petitioner instead of 1.11.2010 and with effect from 1.10.2009 to the petitioners 18 and 19 instead of 1.11.2020; d) the said exercise shall be done within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There will be no order as to costs.