Manipur High Court
Unknown vs The Manipur Public School Society ... on 24 May, 2024
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022
1. Smt. Aribam Daneshwari Devi, aged about 64 years, W/o Shri
I. Kumar Singh, resident of Kairang Meitei, P.O. Mantripukhri,
P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-795002.
2. Shri Laishram Siddharaj Singh, S/o late L. Chaoba Singh, aged
about 62 years, resident of Nagamapal Singjubung Leirak, P.O.
& P.S. Imphal and District Imphal West, Manipur-795001.
3. Smt. Yumnam Sunita Devi, aged about 64 years, W/o Shri
Shambanduram Raghu Singh, resident of Khongman Mayai
Leikai Zone-IV, P.O. & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East District,
Manipur-795008.
4. Smt. Mangla Rana, aged about 64 years, W/o Shri Biren Rana,
resident of Mantripukhri AT Line, Heingang, P.O. Mantripukhri,
P.S. Heingang, Imphal East District, Manipur-795010.
5. Smt. Geetabali Salam, aged about 63 years, W/o Shri
Wakambam Hemanta Kumar, resident of Kairang Road,
Laipham Khunou Maning Leikai, Laipham Siphai, P.O.
Lamlong, P.S. Lamphel, Imphal East District, Manipur-795010.
6. Shri Sanasam Iboyaima Singh, aged about 62 years, S/o late
Sanasam Gambhir Singh, resident of Kwakeithel Konjeng
Leikai, P.O. Canchipur, Manipur University, P.S. Singjamei and
District Imphal West, Manipur-795002.
7. Shri Sanasam Sushilkumar Singh, aged about 64 years, S/o
late S. Nandakishor Singh, resident of Singjamei Okram Leikai
Sanasam Kolup, P.O. & P.S. Singjamei and District Imphal
West, Manipur-795008.
8. Md. Abdul Halim, aged about 63 years, S/o late Md. Abdul Bari,
resident of Hafiz Hatta, P.O. & P.S. Porompat and District
Imphal East, Manipur-795005.
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022 Page 1
9. Smt. Laimayum Sabita Devi, aged about 64 years, W/o Shri
Phurailatpam Ibomcha Sharma, resident of Khoyathong Polem
Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel and District Imphal West, Manipur-
795004.
...... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
The Manipur Public School Society through its Secretary,
Manipur Public School, Koirengei, P.O. Mantripukhri, P.S.
Heingang and District Imphal East, Manipur-795002.
........Respondent/s
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the petitioners :: Mrs. A. Noutuneshwari, Advocate
For the respondent :: Mr. Dennis Tokpam, Advocate
Date of Hearing :: 16.04.2024
Date of Judgment and Order :: 24.05.2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
[1] Heard Mrs. A. Noutuneshwari, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Dennis Tokpam, learned counsel for the respondent.
[2] The brief facts leading to the present case are that the
petitioners are the retired employees of the Manipur Public School
Koirengei, Imphal East on attaining the age of superannuation in view of the
orders issued by the competent authorities of the Manipur Public School
Society as per Rules and Regulation of the Society. The said school is run
by a society formed by the officials/officers of the various departments of the
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022 Page 2
Govt. of Manipur and there are Rules and Regulations for administration,
running as well as other activities for running the said school. As such, the
said school is a school run by the Govt. of Manipur under the said Rules and
Regulations and the amendments made from time to time.
[3] Vide order dated 23.07.1988 issued by the Secretary, Manipur
Public School Society, on the recommendation of the DPC, petitioner Nos.
1 & 5 (who are at serial Nos. 14 & 9) along with 14 others were appointed as
Assistant Teachers of the school in the scale of pay of Rs. 650-40-1050-EV-
1200 plus D.A. and other allowances admissible as per existing rules with
retrospective effect from 01.06.1988 with the conditions that they should
pass the B.Ed./B.T. or equivalent examination within 24 months from the
date of issuance of the order, failing which their services will automatically
get terminated. The said order further stated that the appointment is purely
temporary and is terminable at short notice without assigning any reason
with further conditions that the Sl. Nos. do not reflect seniority and all the
appointees will have to face the academic committee (Selection Board) in
due course.
[4] Vide order dated 19.09.1989 issued by the Manipur Public
School Society, on the recommendation of the DPC, the petitioner No. 6 was
appointed as Assistant Teacher for Commerce initially for a period of six
months in the scale of pay of Rs. 650-40-1050-50-1200/- per month plus
D.A. and other allowances as admissible under Rules with effect from the
date of joining his duties with the condition that his performance will be
released at the end of six months and the appointment is purely temporary
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022 Page 3
and is terminable at a notice of one month. The respondent issued an order
dated 27.08.1991 whereby petitioner No. 3 ( who is at serial No. 3) along
with 4 other persons were appointed to the post of UDC/LDC/Grade-IV of
the Manipur Public School in the revised scale of pay of 1990 of Govt. of
Manipur and she was appointed to the post of LDC.
[5] On 21.11.1991, the Principal, Manipur Public School,
Koirengei, Manipur issued an order whereby the petitioner No. 2 along with
3 other persons were appointed as Assistant Teachers of the school on
contract basis with the consolidated pay of Rs. 1200/- per month till the post
are filled up on regular basis with the condition that they are not entitled to
any terminal benefits and vacation pay. Vide order dated 28.05.1992 issued
by the Secretary, Manipur Public School, on the recommendation of the DPC
held on 21.08.1991, petitioner Nos. 1, 6, 7 & 8 (who are at serial Nos. 15,
19, 21 & 18) along with 18 other persons were appointed to their respective
post of senior teachers/assistant teacher on regular basis with effect from
the dates indicated against their respective names with the condition that the
teachers who could not possesses the B.Ed qualification during the
stipulated time shall be treated as terminated and they will not be given any
future chances of extension for appearing B.Ed., provided seats are
arranged for admission in training colleges. In the said order, it is stated that
those who passed B.Ed. within a period of three years will be treated as
regularized without appearing any interview and that regular service may be
counted from the date of passing B.Ed.
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022 Page 4
[6] Vide order dated 11.02.1999 issued by the Secretary, Manipur
Public School Society, on the recommendation of the Academic Committee
Meeting held on 03.12.1998, the petitioner No. 2 (who is at serial No. 1)
along with 3 other persons were appointed as Assistant Teachers of the
Manipur Public School in the scale of pay of Rs. 650-40-1050-1200/- per
month + D.A. and other allowances as admissible w.e.f. 03.12.1998 with the
condition that the appointment is purely temporary and the same is
terminable by giving one month notice without assigning any reason.
[7] Vide orders dated 20.02.2018, 03.05.2018, 03.07.2018,
31.08.2018, 28.01.2019, 07.11.2019, 07.11.2019 & 06.12.2020 issued by
the Secretary, Manipur Public School Society, Koirengei, petitioner Nos. 1,
3, 9, 7, 8, 6, 5 & 2 were terminated on attaining the age of superannuation.
[8] A meeting of the Internal Finance Monitoring Committee of the
society was held on 24.09.2018 in the office chamber of the Chairman,
Internal Finance Monitory Committee, Manipur Public School at 11:00 a.m.
chaired by the Financial Advisor of the society and in the said meeting under
agenda No. 9, i.e. payment of retirement benefits in respect of Mangla Rana
(petitioner No. 4), A. Daneswari Devi (petitioner No. 1), L. Sabita Devi
(petitioner No. 9) and Y. Sunita Devi (petitioner No. 3) were considered in
dept under the agenda No. 9 wherein it was resolved to release 1/3 of the
payable amount as first instalment etc.
[9] Petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, & 9 jointly submitted a representation
dated 06.03.2019 to the Chairman, Manipur Public School Society,
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022 Page 5
Koirengei, Imphal East Manipur for payment of retirement benefits of the
superannuated employees of the Manipur Public School and in the said
representation, the said petitioners requested for releasing/payment of the
remaining retirement benefits.
[10] On 12.11.2019, a meeting of the Internal Financial Monitoring
of the Manipur Public School, Koirengei, Imphal East was held in the office
chamber of the Chairman, Internal Financial Monitoring Committee
discussed about the expenditure structure for the year 2019-2020 and
confirmed the resolution of the meeting held on 12.07.2019 and after
discussion of agenda No. 3 i.e. payment of retirement benefits to employees,
it was resolved and agreed for payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the
retired officials as recurring payment for the time being for every released of
regular staff pay and allowances and the same will be continued till the
financial position is sound.
[11] The Principal, Manipur Public School Society, Koirengei,
Imphal East wrote a letter on 10.11.2021 to the Commissioner, Education
(S), Govt. of Manipur by submitting revised estimate and budget estimate of
the school and in the said letter, the principal of the school reflected the facts
and circumstances of the school since its establishment till the written of the
said letter and also giving instalment and remaining amount may be paid as
per the availability of fund.
[12] The respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the Manipur
Public School is run by a society namely the Manipur Public School Society
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022 Page 6
and the society was registered on 28.03.1979 under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 by framing its Rules and Regulations. As the school
is run by the MPS Society, the conditions of service of its employees are
governed by the Rules and Regulations framed by the society and the
conditions of service of the State employees are not automatically applicable
to them. It is stated that as per the resolutions taken under Agenda No. 9 in
the meeting of the Internal Finance Monitoring Committee (IFMC) held on
24.09.2018, 1/3 of the payable amount is to be released as 1st instalment
and remaining amount to be paid as per the availability of funds to Mangla
Rana (petitioner No. 4), A. Daneswari Devi (petitioner No. 1), L. Sabita Devi
(petitioner No. 9) and Y. Sunita Devi (petitioner No. 3). Further, it is sated
that all the retired employees are being paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month
on every release of pay and allowances to regular staff as per a decision
taken by the IFMC in its meeting held on 12.11.2019 and the sum of Rs.
10,000/- per month has been paid to the petitioners till September, 2022. It
is stated that the society is processing for payments of the monthly benefit
of Rs. 10,000/- from October, 2022 to March, 2023 payable to the petitioners.
It is stated that the IFMC in its meeting held on 12.11.2019 decided under
Agenda No. 3 for payment of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the retired officials
as recurring payment for the time being on every release of pay and
allowances of the regular staff and this will be continued till the financial
position of the school is improved. Accordingly, all retired employees were
paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on very release of pay and allowances to the
regular staff. The School is committed to pay salaries etc. to its current staff
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022 Page 7
and post-retirement benefits to all retired staff as per Rules and Regulations
of the society. However, as on date, the school is in deep financial difficulties,
incurring a huge deficit estimated to be about Rs. 5 crores. It is further stated
that payment of 1/3 of the payment due to retired employees, payment of an
amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month each to the retired employees on every
release of salaries and allowances to current staff and so on are temporary
measures adopted by the school to provide some financial solace to the
retired employees. It is prayed that the present writ petition may be
dismissed.
[13] Mrs. A. Noutuneshari Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that there is no reason for withholding the retiral benefits of the
petitioners. It is pointed out that such benefits can be withheld during the
pendency of any enquiry or criminal proceedings against the petitioners and
can be denied upon verdict of guilty against the pensioners in such
proceedings. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the sole
reason of withholding the retiral benefits as due to acute financial constraints
of the school management. It is prayed that the respondent be directed to
release the retiral benefits of the petitioners forthwith.
[14] Mr. Dennis Tokpam, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the retiral benefits are not withheld in true sense, but non-
release of the same is due to acute financial situation faced by the school
management coupled with non-functional managing committee for a
considerable long period. It is pointed out that whenever funds are available,
a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is released to all retired employees of the school. It is
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022 Page 8
prayed that some more time be given to the school management to clear the
due amount.
[15] This Court has perused the materials on record and considered
the submissions made at bar. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are
retired employees of the respondent school. Further, it is not in dispute that
no disciplinary and/or criminal proceedings are pending against the
petitioners. It is the case of the respondent that failure to clear the retiral
benefits is due to acute financial problem faced by the school management.
It is the settled proposition of law in service jurisprudence that retiral benefit
of a pensioner cannot be withheld except upon found guilty in a departmental
proceeding and/or criminal case initiated against the pensioner. Right to
pensionary benefit is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of
the Constitution of India.
[16] In the case of K. Boni Mao v. State of Manipur [WP(C) No.
633 of 2023, Order dated 29.11.2023]- MANU/MN/0222/2023, this Court
held that right and payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion
of the employer and poor financial condition is not a ground to deny
pensionary benefit and other entitlement to the pensioner, unless the
pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during service
period in a departmental or criminal proceeding. Para 10, 11 and 12 are
reproduced below for reference.
[10] In the case of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava & Anr. reported as MANU/SC/0801/2013 : (2013) 12 SCC
210 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right to pensionary benefit is
a constitutional right as as such cannot be taken away without proper
justification. Further, in the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P.
reported as MANU/SC/0184/1999 : (1999) 3 SCC 438, it was held that
grant of pensionary benefits is not a bounty, but a right of the employee,
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022 Page 9
and as such cannot be denied without proper jurisdiction. In the case of
D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India reported as
MANU/SC/0237/1982 : (1983) 1 SCC 3005, a 5 Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that "31.......(i) that pension is neither a bounty
nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer
and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are
statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of
the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it
is a payment for the past service rendered; and (ii) it is a social welfare
measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day
of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in
their old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that
the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the
average emoluments drawn during last three years of service reduced
to 10 months under liberalised pension scheme, Its payment is
dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even
subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of
service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary
measure". In the case of Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. Tata Iron and
Steel Co. Ltd. reported as MANU/SC/0208/1984 : (1984) 3 SCC 369,
it was held that "18. For centuries the courts swung in favour of the view
that pension is either a bounty or a gratuitous payment for loyal service
rendered depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not
claimable as a right and therefore, no right to pension can be enforced
through court. This view held the field and a suit to recover pension was
held not maintainable. With the modern notions of social justice and
social security, concept of pension underwent a radical change and it is
now well-settled that pension is a right and payment of it does not
depend upon the discretion of the employer, nor can it be denied at the
sweet will or fancy of the employer."
[11] Poor financial condition of the State and non-receiving
of the instruction from the higher authority is not a ground to deny
pensionary benefit and other entitlement to the pensioner. The
contention of the State Government for releasing the pensionary benefit
of the petitioner is without any substance and perverse on the face of it.
[12] Reference may be made to Rule 9 of CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 which empowers withholding of pension or gratuity or both,
if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during
the period of service in a departmental or judicial proceeding. Apart from
Rule 9, there is no other provisions which stipulate withholding of
pension or gratuity or any other pensionary benefit. In the present case,
the reason cited for not releasing the pensionary benefit is the poor
financial condition of the State and non-clearance for the payment
from higher authority. The contents of the letter dated 24.10.2023 sent
by the Treasury Officer, Imphal West to the Office of Govt. Advocate,
High Court are not within the scope of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 for the simple reason that there was no departmental or judicial
proceeding against the petitioner holding her of guilty of grave
misconduct. This Court is of firmed opinion that withholding the
pensionary benefit of the petitioner by the State authority is without any
substance and the same is in violation of aforesaid Rule 9 and also
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022 Page 10
against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such illegal
action cannot be sustained in a welfare State.
[17] This Court is aware of the fact that the school management is
run by a Society, whose members are top bureaucrats of the State and the
financial problem can be sorted using the good office of the members. As
held in the case of Boni Mao (supra) as reproduced in para 16 above, this
Court is of firmed opinion that poor financial condition is not a ground to deny
retiral benefit. Payment of Rs.10,000/- whenever fund is available is not
contemplated by any rule or precedent.
[18] In the circumstances and in view of the settled law in this
regard, this Court directs the respondent to release balance amount of retiral
benefits to the petitioners forthwith. The payment shall be completed within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
failing which interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable from the date of
initial entitlement. Writ petition is allowed. No cost.
[19] Send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Manipur Public
School Society for information and necessary compliance.
KH. JOSHUA KH. JOSHUA MARING
MARING Date: 2024.05.24 JUDGE
15:18:53 +05'30'
FR/NFR
Kh. Joshua Maring
WP(C) No. 749 of 2022 Page 11
