Manipur High Court
Smt. Jahedabibi vs The State Of Manipur Represented ... on 10 January, 2023
LAISHRAM Digitally signed by LAISHRAM
DHAKESHORI DEVI
DHAKESHORI DEVI Date: 2023.01.10 14:44:25 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR : AT IMPHAL
W.P.(C) No. 698 of 2019
Smt. JahedaBibi, aged about 56 years, W/o (L) Md.
GulAhamad, a resident of KeiraoMakhaLeikai, P.O.
Singjamei& P.S. Irilbung, District-Imphal East,Manipur.
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner (MID), Government of Manipur,
P.O& P.S. Imphal, Imphal West District, Manipur
(Secretariat Old ) - 795001.
2. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department,
Government of Manipur at Lamphelpat, P.O& P.S.
Lamphel, District - Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
3. The Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of Manipur,
P.O& P.S. Imphal, Chief Minister‟s Secretariat at Babupara,
Imphal West District, Manipur - 795001.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE AHANTHEMBIMOL SINGH
For the petitioner ∷ Mr.Ch. Robinchandra, Advocate
For the respondents ∷ Mr.Th. Sukumar, Government Advocate
Date of Hearing ∷ 20-10-2022
Date of Judgment & ∷ 10-01-2023
Order
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Heard Mr.Ch.Robinchandra, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr.Th. Sukumar, learned GA appearing for the
respondents.
WP(C) No. 698 of 2019 Page 1
[2] The present writ petition had been filed with a prayer for
directing the respondents to confirm the Work-charged service of the
petitioner‟s husband (L) Md. GulAhamad, who was serving as Work-
charged Khalasi in the Minor Irrigation Department (MI), Manipur so as
to enable the petitioner to avail family pension as provided under the
Terminal Benefit for Work-charged Staffs of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI
and Electricity Rules, 1978.
[3] By an order dated 01-12-1989 issued by the
Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Manipur, the
petitioner‟s husband (L) Md. GulAhamadwas appointed as Work-
charged Khalasi along with 29 other persons in the Minor Irrigation
Department, Government of Manipur. The petitioner‟s husband expired
on 24-02-2003 while serving as a Work-charged Khalasi in the Minor
Irrigation Department, Government of Manipur and at the time of his
death, the petitioner‟s husband had rendered more than 13 years
service as a Work-charged Khalasi. After the death of her husband, the
petitioner approached the concerned authorities to grant family pension
and other retirement benefits due payable to her under the relevant
Rules. However, the authorities did not consider the claim of the
petitioner for payment of family pension and other retirement benefits to
the family members of the deceased work-charged employee.
WP(C) No. 698 of 2019 Page 2
[4] Under the amended Rules 6(A) of the Terminal Benefits
for Work-Charged Staffs of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI and Electricity Rules,
1978 (herein referred to as „Terminal Benefit Rules‟ for short), it is
provided as under :-
"6(A) - Family Pension as calculated under the Manipur Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1977, as amended from time to time,
shall also be applicable to the family of the deceased of the
Work-charged employee subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The benefit shall be available to the family of any
permanent work-charged employee who died on or
after 21-06-1990 after rendering not less than
1(one) year of service after confirmation.
(ii) The payment of Family Pension shall be effective
from 21-05-1993 and no arrears in cash or
otherwise for the period from 21-06-1990 to 21-05-
1993 shall be paid".
[5] On 22-01-2001, the Principal Secretary (Finance),
Government of Manipur issued an Office Memorandum laying down the
criteria for confirmation of Work-charged employees. In the said Office
Memorandum dated 22-01-2001, it is provided that -
(i)confirmation of Work-charged employees should be
made against the permanent posts in the Work-charged
Establishment.
(ii) Confirmation of Work-charged employees may be
made only when they have put in 10 years service as
Work-charged with the effect of confirmation from the
date, they have completed 5 years service in the Work-
charged Establishment and
WP(C) No. 698 of 2019 Page 3
(iii) No, confirmation of those Work-charged employees
who have been brought to the regular Establishment, with
Retrospective effect, should be made.
[6] As the petitioner‟s husband had already rendered more
than 10 years service as Work-charged Khalasi in the Minor Irrigation
Department, Manipur before his expiry, he was entitled to have his
Work-charged service confirmed by the authorities as provided under
the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 22-01-2001 issued by the
Finance Department. As the authorities have failed to consider the
case of the petitioner‟s husband for confirmation of his Work-charged
service during his lifetime, the petitioner is approaching this Court by
filing the present writ petition with a prayer for directing the respondents
to confirm the work-charged service of her late husband so as to
enable the petitioner to avail family pension and other retirement
benefits under the Terminal Benefit Rules.
[7] Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the services of many work-charged
employees, who were similarly situated as the petitioner‟s husband,
including some work-charged employees of the Minor Irrigation
Department, who were appointed along with the petitioner‟s husband
by the same order as work-charged employees, have been confirmed
by the authorities in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 22-01-
2001 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Manipur after
their expiry or retirement.It has also been submitted that as the
WP(C) No. 698 of 2019 Page 4
petitioner‟s husband is qualified and entitled to have his work-charged
service confirmed in terms of the said Office Memorandum dated 22-
01-2001 and as the case of the petitioner‟s husband is similarly
situated with those other work-charged employees, whose services
have been confirmed by the authorities, the petitioner is entitled to get
the relief sought for in the present writ petition.
[8] Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents submitted that the Secretariat, Finance
Department issued an Office Memorandum dated 28-08-2007 laying
down certain procedures for confirmation of work-charged employees,
which are as under :-
"(1) Departments will notify the actual number of permanent
postsin the Work-charged establishment in consultation
with Finance Department (PIC)
"(2) Having regard to Para 9.01 of the CPWD Manual Vol.
III, confirmation of a serving work-charged employee for all
purposes shall be made against an available vacant
permanent post in the Work-charged Establishment only in
respect of those who have put into 10 years‟ service in the
Work-charged Establishment. The confirmation shall be
effective from the date of completion of 5 years‟ service in
the Work-charged Establishment or from the date of
vacancy of the permanent post, whichever is later. The
procedure for confirmation as outlined in Office
Memorandum No. 17/1/2003-FD(PIC)Pt., dated 13-04-2006
shall compulsorily be followed.
"(3) No retrospective confirmation shall be made after
retirement or expiry of the employee.
WP(C) No. 698 of 2019 Page 5
"(4)DPC for confirmation of Work-charged employee shall
meet twice in a year, say, January and July and orders for
confirmation shall be issued at six months intervals after
fulfilment of all necessary conditions."
[9] It has been submitted by the learned Government Advocate
that under the new Office Memorandum, it has been clearly laid down
that no retrospective confirmation shall be made after retirement or
expiry of the employee. It has also been submitted that all the
Government orders by which the services of many work-charged
employees had been confirmed retrospectively after their retirement or
expiry have been issued before issuance of the aforesaid new Office
Memorandum dated 28-8-2007 and since the work-charged service of
the petitioner‟s husband was not confirmed earlier before issuance of
the new Office Memorandum dated 28-08-2007, the claim of parity
made by the petitioner is unfounded and not sustainable, inasmuch as,
under the new Office Memorandum dated 28-08-2007, it has been
clearly provided that no retrospective confirmation shall be made after
retirement or expiry of the employee. Learned Government Advocate,
accordingly, submitted that the present writ petition is without any merit
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
[10] I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and carefully examined the materials available
on record. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner was
appointed as work-charged Khalasi along with 29 other incumbents in
WP(C) No. 698 of 2019 Page 6
the Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Manipur, by an order
dated 01-12-1989 and the petitioner‟s husband expired on 24-02-2003
while serving as work-charged Khalasi. At the time his death, the
petitioner‟s husband had rendered more than 13 years service as a
work-charged employee and accordingly, he was qualified, eligible and
entitled to have his work-charged service confirmed as provided under
Office Memorandum dated 22-01-2001. The respondents have not
denied the fact that the services of many work-charged employees,
who were appointed along with the petitioner‟s husband on the same
date and who were similarly situated with the petitioner‟s husband,
have been confirmed retrospectively either after their retirement or
expiry by issuing various orders and even by creating supernumerary
posts.
[11] In view of the above, this Court did not find any ground or
reason for holding that the case of the petitioner‟s husband is different
and that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by her in the
present writ petition.
[12] The only objection raised by the respondents to the claim
made by the petitioner in the present case is that since there is a
prohibition under the new Office Memorandum dated 28-08-2007 to the
retrospective confirmation of the work-charged employee after his
retirement or expiry and since the petitioner‟s husband had already
expire on 24-02-2003 before confirmation of his work-charged service,
WP(C) No. 698 of 2019 Page 7
the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be
granted.
[13] In this regard, it is to be pointed out that the new Office
Memorandum dated 28-08-2007 which prohibits retrospective
confirmation of the services of a work-charged employee after his
retirement or expiry took effect from the date of the said office
memorandum and accordingly, any provisions therein cannot operate
retrospectively. Moreover, the earlier Office Memorandum dated 22-01-
2001, under which the petitioner is claiming for confirmation of her late
husband‟s work-charged services, has not been cancelled or
superseded till today. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view
that any right or benefit accrued to the petitioner‟s husband under the
earlier office memorandum cannot be denied or curtailed by the
respondents specially when the respondents failed to consider the case
of the petitioner‟s husband for confirmation of his service during his
lifetime or prior to the issuance of the new office memorandum dated
28-08-2007. In short, the petitioner‟s husband or the petitioner, as the
case may be, cannot be victimised for the fault of the respondents.
[14] As held herein above, this Court did not find any ground or
reason to hold that the case of the petitioner‟s husband is different from
the other work-charged employees whose services have been
confirmed in terms of the earlier office memorandum dated 22-01-2001
retrospectively after their retirement or expiry, hence, this Court is of
WP(C) No. 698 of 2019 Page 8
the considered view that the acts of the respondents in refusing to
grant the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition,
specially only on the ground mentioned herein above, is very much
arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, accordingly, this Court is of
the considered view that petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in
the present writ petition. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by
directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner‟s
husband for confirmation of his work-charged services as provided
under the office memorandum dated 22-01-2001 and to issue
necessary orders within a period of 2(two) months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
[15] The respondents are further directed to consider the claim
of the petitioner for granting family pension and other retirement
benefits due payable to her under the Terminal Benefit Rules as early
as possible but not later than 4(four) months from today.
[16] With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is
disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, parties
are directed to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Dhakeshori
FR/NFR
WP(C) No. 698 of 2019 Page 9
