Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 150 (MAN)

Angom Mihir Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-08-09

AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and 7. Heard also, Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6. The issue involved in the present writ petition is with regard to the claim of the petitioner for payment of correct and entitled pension, gratuity and commutation and also for payment of the arrear pension and other benefits due payable to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Manipur on regular basis on 25-11-1978. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector on regular basis on 01-07-1996 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300/-. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was serving as an Inspector in the Department of Economics and Statistics, the State Government revised the pay scale of the Inspector from Rs. 1400-2300/- to 5000-8000/- w.e.f. 01-01-1996 by issuing the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) (1st Amendment) Rules, 1999 [hereinafter referred to as the 'ROP (1st Amendment) 1999'] 3. While the petitioner was serving as an Inspector, the State Government gave him the higher pay scale of Rs. 7,250/- we.f. 01-07-2005 on his completion of 24th years of regular service in terms of policy of the State Government under the Assured Career Progression Scheme for the employees of the Government of Manipur. On 11-10-2006, the petitioner was given regular promotion to the higher post of Assistant Director in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Manipur in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000/-. Subsequently, the pay scale of the Inspector in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Manipur was revised from the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- to Rs. 4500-7000/- w.e.f. 01-01-2007 under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as 'ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006']. 4. On 05-05-2010, the Manipur Government notified the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ROP 2010') thereby revising the pay scales of the State Government employees including the post of Inspector and Assistant Director in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics. The said ROP 2010 came into force notionally w.e.f. 01-01-2006 and cash payment is to given w.e.f. 01-04-2010. The said ROP 2010 came into force notionally w.e.f. 01-01-2006 and cash payment is to given w.e.f. 01-04-2010. In the said ROP 2010, the pay scale of the Inspector was revised from Rs. 4500-7000/- to Rs. 5200-20200/- and the pay scale of Assistant Director was revised from Rs. 5500 -9000/- to Rs. 9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4300/-. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28-02-2013 while serving as Assistant Director in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics and enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 17,610/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4300/-. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that after his retirement, the Director of Economics and Statistics, Government of Manipur submitted the revised format of pension calculation sheet under Rule 61 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and that as per the calculation of the Department, the petitioner was entitled to receive Gratuity of Rs. 5,96,508/- and a pension of Rs. 10,955/- per month, however, the petitioner was given the revised Gratuity of Rs. 5,74,728/-, Commutation of Rs. 4,15,141/- and a pension of Rs. 10,555/- under P.P.O. No. 111301060 by the Accountant General, Manipur. Having been aggrieved by the acts of the Accountant General, Manipur, the petitioner approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 193 of 2016 with a prayer for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to enjoy the pension of Rs. 10,955/-, Gratuity of Rs. 5,96,508/- and Commutation of Rs. 4,30,873/- along with some other reliefs. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 11-05-2017 with the following directions - '6. Considering the above submissions made, this Court is of the view that this is a matter which needs to be resolved at the instance of the respondent authorities by making necessary verification and clarification. 4,30,873/- along with some other reliefs. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 11-05-2017 with the following directions - '6. Considering the above submissions made, this Court is of the view that this is a matter which needs to be resolved at the instance of the respondent authorities by making necessary verification and clarification. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities to verify as to the pay scale opted by the petitioner, whether it was the existing pay of scale (prerevised) or it was the Revision of Pay, 2010 and after such determination, the authorities will again calculate the necessary entitlements by taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners had been already promoted to the higher post of Assistant Director on 11.10.2006 as his pensionary benefits have to be calculated with reference to the last pay drawn by the petitioner and also he had been granted certain benefits under the ACP Scheme as claimed by him.' '7. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the authorities within a period of 3 (three) months from today by granting the appropriate retiral and pensionary benefits.' 6. According to the petitioner, the State Government initially issued an order dated 21-12-2017 in purported compliance with the aforesaid order of this court dated 11-05-2017 thereby wrongly calculating the pay scale enjoyed by the petitioner. However, subsequently the State Government issued an order dated 27-10-2018 in supersession of its earlier order dated 21-12-2017 thereby ordering that the correct amount of pension of the petitioner should be Rs. 10,955/- and advising the Director (Eco. & Stats.) to rectify and recast the Service Book of the petitioner in terms of the said order. On receiving the rectified and recast Service Book of the petitioner submitted by the Director (Eco. & Stats.), the Deputy Accountant General (A&E) wrote a letter dated 17-05-2019 to the Deputy Secretary, Finance (PIC), Government of Manipur, stating, inter alia, that on scrutiny of the records, it was found that the fixation of pay of the petitioner done under the order dated 27-10-2018 was not in order and that the fixation of pay of the petitioner under the earlier Government order dated 21-12-2017 was in order and that the pay fixation of the petitioner under the subsequent order dated 27-10-2018 was irregular. It was also stated that as the pay fixation of the petitioner under the order dated 27-10-2018 was irregular, the Office of the Accountant General has no action to be taken up for revision of pension of the petitioner and accordingly, a request was made to review the pay fixation order dated 27-10-2018 or to issue a speaking order, if the Government finds the fixation of pay of the petitioner under the order dated 27-10-2018 was in order. 7. In response to the letter dated 17-05-2019 of the Accountant General (A&E), the Deputy Secretary, Finance (PIC), Government of Manipur, wrote a letter dated 28-11-2019 stating, inter alia, that the last pay drawn by the petitioner on the date of his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 28-02-2013 had been indicated by the Finance Department (PIC) as Rs. 21,910/- and that his pension would be Rs. 10,955/- on the ground that the petitioner was already granted ACP-II on completion of 24 (twenty four) years service in the pay scale of Rs. 5,500- 175-9000 w.e.f. 01-07-2005 and also promoted to the post of Assistant Director in the pay scale of Rs. 5,500/--175-9000 on 11-10-2006 prior to issuance of the ROP (2nd Amendment), 2006 and therefore, the question of issuing a speaking order in that regard does not arise. 8. On receiving the aforesaid letter dated 28-11-2019 of the Deputy Secretary, Finance (PIC), the Deputy Accountant General (A&E) wrote another letter dated 27-12-2019 to the Deputy Secretary, Finance (PIC), stating, inter alia, that as per the Explanation (3) of Rule 3 of the ROP 2010 read with clarification on point of doubt No. 16 of Finance Department (PIC) clarification Office Memorandum dated 07-07-2010, emoluments of the purpose of pay shall be determined with reference to pay to be regulated in the scale of pay specified in Column (4) against the post in Column (2) of Scheduled-I, Part-C, of ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 and requested to clarify as to whether the pay of all the employees in the similarly situated cases covered by the downgraded scale under the ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 but granted ACP or promoted to the higher post, prior to enforcement of the said ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 will be extended with the same treatment so as to avoid claims made by persons similarly situated with the petitioner. Subsequently, the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Manipur wrote two reminder letters dated 05-03-2020 and 11-02-2021 stating that the clarification from the Government side is still awaited and requested the Deputy Secretary (Finance/ PIC) to convey the Government's decision in that regard at the earliest. 9. On 04-03-2021, the Under Secretary, Finance (PIC) wrote a letter to the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A&E) stating that the pay regulation of the petitioner and one Shri M. Nabakishore Singh, who are both retired Assistant Director of Economics and Statistics cannot be treated as a similar case and that the above two retired Assistant Director are not covered by downgraded scale under the ROP as they were promoted to the higher post of Assistant Director prior to the enforcement of the ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 and accordingly, a request was made to take necessary action. In response to the aforesaid letter dated 04-03-2021, the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A&E) wrote another letter dated 27-08-2021 to the Chief Secretary (Finance/PIC), Government of Manipur stating, inter alia, that the Office of the Accountant General was following the fixation of pay in accordance with the Manipur ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 read with Rule 3(3) of the ROP 2010 while processing and authorizing pensionary benefits for all Departments and that instead of fixing pay on the basis of the corresponding downgraded pay scale as specified in ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 read with Rule 3(3) of the ROP 2010, the Administrative Department of Economics and Statistics continues to gave the pay scale under the ROP 1999 to the said two officers resulting in over-payment of pay and allowances w.e.f. 01-01-2006 and requesting to look into the matter afresh and to review the orders dated 27-10-2018, 28-11-2019 and 04-03-2021 of the Finance Department, PIC, Government of Manipur and to convey the final decision of the Government to avoid any further contradictions/ confusion in the finalization of pension cases of the State Government employees. 10. The State respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 did not file any counter affidavit or contest the claim of the petitioner and only the Accountant General, Manipur, respondent No. 6 in the present writ petition contest the present writ petition by filing counter affidavit. 10. The State respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 did not file any counter affidavit or contest the claim of the petitioner and only the Accountant General, Manipur, respondent No. 6 in the present writ petition contest the present writ petition by filing counter affidavit. The only ground raised by the respondent No. 6 in contesting the claim of the petitioner is that the Administrative Department did not calculate the pay scale of the petitioner in terms of the Explanation (3) of Rule 3 of the ROP 2010 read with clarification on point of doubt No. 16 of the Office Memorandum No. 1/4/2008-FD(PIC)(PT)(3) dated 07-07-2010 as well as the ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006. The specific objection raised by the respondent No. 6 is that the pay scale of the petitioner was not fixed on the basis of the corresponding downgraded pay scale in the grade of Inspector as specified in the ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006. 11. The relevant provisions of the Explanation (3) of Rule 3 of the ROP 2010, the clarification on point of doubt No. 16 in the O.M. dated 07-07-2010 and the ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- (i) 'GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT (PAY IMPLEMENTATION) .... OFFICE MEMORANDUM Imphal, the 7th July, 2010 Subject:- Clarifications on the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010. No. 1/4/2008-FD(PIC)(PT)(3): The undersigned is directed to refer to the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010, notified vide Manipur Gazette Extraordinary No. 12, dated 05/05/2010 and to state that clarifications/ points of doubts are being sought from various departments/ quarters regarding aspects of the date of next increment, the method of fixation of pay on promotion after 01/01/2006, use of fitment tables, etc. 2. In this connection, the following clarifications are issued:- 16. As per Explanation (1) below rule 3(2), in the case of correction of pay scales, 'existing scale' means existing scale of pay prescribed in column (4) against the post specified in column (2) of Schedule- I, Part-C of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2006 issued under Notification No. 1/12/2006- FD(PIC), dated 28/12/ 2006-FD(PIC), dated 28/12/2006. In such cases, how will pay under the MS (RP) Rules, 2010 be regulated? In such cases, how will pay under the MS (RP) Rules, 2010 be regulated? Attention is invited to Office Memorandum No. 1/12/2006- FD(PIC)(Pt), dated 23/05/2003 wherein Explanation 3(B) of Memorandum Explanatory to the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2006 provides that - 'As soon as the incumbent concerned ceases to hold the post or till the next revision of pay scale takes place, the personal pay scale(s) shall be no more in existence and the emoluments for the purpose of next revision of pay scales, if any, shall be determined with reference to pay to be regulated in the scale of pay specified in Col. (4) against that post in Col. (2). As such, pay in the revised pay scale specified in Col. (4) against the [post of Col (2) shall be fixed afresh under the provisions of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 with reference to the pay in the pre-revised pay scale under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1990 as amended. Pay so fixed as on 01/01/1996 or from a subsequent date, as the case may be, shall be regulated from time to time upto 31/12/2005 and pay under the provisions of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 shall be fixed with reference to such pay as on 01/01/2006 or on a subsequent date, as the case may be. A copy of the Statement showing the regulation of pay from time to time duly signed by the Head of Office /Drawing & Disbursing Officer shall be attached as required vide Note against Sl. No. 5 of the Revised Proforma/ Statement of Fixation of Pay under Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 [Annexure -II to this Department's O.M. No. 1/4/ 2008(FD(PIC)(PT)(2), dated 07/07/2010].' (ii) 'GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT (PAY IMPLEMENTATION CELL) ... N O T I F I C A T I O N Imphal, the 5th May, 2010 No. 1/4/2008-FD(PIC): In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Manipur hereby makes the following rules, namely - 1. Short title and commencement - (1) These rules may be called the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010. (2) They shall be deemed to have come into force notionally on the 1st day of January, 2006 with cash payment from 1st April, 2010.' 3. Short title and commencement - (1) These rules may be called the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010. (2) They shall be deemed to have come into force notionally on the 1st day of January, 2006 with cash payment from 1st April, 2010.' 3. Definition - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires - (1) *** (2) *** (3) 'Existing emoluments' means the result of multiplication of existing pay as on 01/01/2006 by a factor of 1.86 and rounded off to next multiple of 10; Explanation - In the case of incumbents drawing pay and allowances in the personal pay scale(s) [shadow scale], the emoluments for the purpose of this rule shall be determined with reference to pay to be regulated in the scale of pay specified in Col. (4) against the post of Col. (2) of Schedule - I, Part - C of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2006 issued under Notification No. 1/12/2006-FD(PIC), dated 28/12/2006.' (iii) 'GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR SECRETARIAT: FINANCE DEPARTMENT (PAY IMPLEMENTION CELL) ... N O T I F I C A T I O N Imphal, the 28th December, 2006. No. 1/12/2006-FD(PIC): In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Manipur hereby makes the following rules to amend the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, namely :- 1. (1) These rules may be called the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2006. (2) The existing pay scales in the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 are further revised in respect of certain posts as shown in the Annexure to this Notification. Provided that the existing pay scales shall be personal to the incumbents concerned till they cease to hold the posts or till the next revision of pay scales takes place, whichever is earlier, in all cases where the pay scales are revised downwards to make them conform to the Central replacement scales; Provided further that the benefit of FR 22(I)(a)(1) shall be applicable to the promotion posts when they pay scales of the feeder posts and the promotion posts belong to the same time-scale of pay at the time of promotion assuming that the promotion pots carry duties and responsibility of greater importance. 2. Exercise of Option:- A Govt. 2. Exercise of Option:- A Govt. servant who continues to draw pay in the pre-revised pay scale under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1990 may now exercise option to switch to the revised scale under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999; Provide that the option shall be exercised in writing by the Government servant so as to reach the Head of his Office/ Department or the Accountant General (A&E), Manipur within 3 (three) months from the date of notification of these rules. 3. Save in cases of specific effective date of revised pay scales shown in the Annexure, the revised pay scales as in Annexure shall be effective from 01/01/2007. Annexure SCHEDULE-I PART - C Sl. No. Name of Post Existing Scale Revised Scale Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (XI) Economics & Statistics 1. Additional Director 10000-15200 10000-15200 Redesignated as Joint Director 2. Statistical Officer (Graphics) 5000-8000 4500-7000 Renamed as Inspector. 100% by promotion from Draftsman deleted. 3. Inspector 5000-8000 4500-7000' 12. On careful examination of the provisions quoted hereinabove as well as the provisions of the relevant ROP which were placed before this court by Mr. S. Suresh as well as Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the considered view that the downgraded pay scale of the Inspector in the Economics and Statistics Department as provided under the ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 is not at all applicable to the petitioner. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector on 01-07-1996 and he was enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- as provided under the ROP 1999 read with ROP (1st Amendment) 1999 which came into force w.e.f. 01-01-1996. The said pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- for the post of Inspector in the Economics and Statistics Department was again revised under ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 which came into force w.e.f. 01-01-2007. In the said ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006, the pay scale of Inspector was downgraded/decreased from Rs. 5000-8000/- to Rs. 4,500-7000/- only w.e.f. 01-01- 2007. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner was already promoted to the higher post of Assistant Director on 11-10-2006 prior to the enforcement of the said ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006. In the said ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006, the pay scale of Inspector was downgraded/decreased from Rs. 5000-8000/- to Rs. 4,500-7000/- only w.e.f. 01-01- 2007. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner was already promoted to the higher post of Assistant Director on 11-10-2006 prior to the enforcement of the said ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006. As the petitioner was already promoted to the higher post of Assistant Director prior to the enforcement of the said ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006, there is no question of applicability of the downgraded pay scale of Inspector in respect of the petitioner. Even if the petitioner continued as Inspector after enforcement of the said ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006, the downgraded pay scale will still not be applicable to the petitioner in view of the first proviso to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 1 of the said ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006, which provides that the existing pay scale shall be personal to the incumbents concerned till they cease to hold the post or till the next revision of pay takes place, whichever is earlier, in all cases where the pay scales are revised downwards to make them conform to the Central replacement scales. Moreover, the downgraded pay scale of Inspector of Economics and Statistics under the ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 was revised from Rs. 4,500-7000/- to Rs. 5,200-20,200/- under the ROP 2010 notionally w.e.f. 01-01-2006 with cash payment from 01-04-2010. In view of the said revision of pay of the post of Inspector under the ROP 2010, there is absolutely no question of applicability of downgraded pay scale of the Inspector under the ROP (2nd Amendment) 2006 in respect of the petitioner. 13. On careful examination of the provisions of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of the ROP 2010 and clarification on point of doubt No. 16 of the Office Memorandum dated 07-07-2010, this court is of the considered view that those provisions are only of calculating the pay scales for the purpose of revision of pay scales under the ROP 2010 and it has nothing to do with the calculation of the pay scale of the petitioner in the post of Inspector. In view of the findings and reasons given hereinabove, this court is of the considered view that the objection raised by the respondent No. 6 to the claims made by the petitioner for payment of his pension and other retiral benefits is unjustified and without any merit. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed for in the present writ petition. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed by directing the respondent No. 6 to take prompt action for releasing the pension and other retiral benefits due payable to Late Shri A. Mihir Singh, retired Assistant Director of Economics and Statistics Department, Government of Manipur in terms of the order dated 27-10-2018 of the Secretary (Eco. & Stats.), Government of Manipur. The whole exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. Parties are to bear their own costs.