Smt. Loukrakpam (O) Purnima Devi vs State Of Manipur & Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 9 Mani

Manipur High Court

Smt. Loukrakpam (O) Purnima Devi vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 15 January, 2026

Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

SHOUGRAKPAM     Digitally signed by
                SHOUGRAKPAM DEVANANDA                                        IN. 19
DEVANANDA       SINGH
                Date: 2026.01.16 13:29:41
SINGH           +05'30'



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                    AT IMPHAL
       WP(C) No. 355 of 2020
       Smt. Loukrakpam (O) Purnima Devi                     ... Petitioner
              Vs.
       State of Manipur & ors.                              ... Respondents

B E F O R E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

15-01-2026

[1] Heard Mr. Ch. Robinchandra, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner; Mr. Th. Vashum, learned GA appearing for the

respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr. MK Ajir, learned counsel representing

Mr. L. Gunindro, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6.

[2] The petitioner is the wife of Late Shri L. Ibopishak Singh, who

was working as a regular Work-Charged Chowkidar in the Electricity

Department during his lifetime.

[3] The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order

dated 22-01-2020 issued by the Secretariat: Power Department by which

the claim made by the petitioner for grant of family pension under the

Terminal Benefits for Work-Charged Staffs of PWD/ IFCD/ PHED/ MI

and Electricity Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "Terminal

Benefits Rules, for short") had been rejected. The petitioner has also

prayed for issuing appropriate directions to the respondents to pay family

WP(C) No. 355 of 2020 Contd.../-

pension in respect of her deceased husband under the said Terminal

Benefits Rules.

[4] The case of the petitioner is that her husband initially

entered as Casual/ Muster Roll employee in the Electricity Department,

Government of Manipur, in the year 1979-1980 along with other

incumbents. After her husband had completed more than 10 (ten) years

of service as a Casual/ Muster Roll employee, he along with other

Casual/ Muster Roll employees of the Electricity Department,

Government of Manipur, jointly filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, which was registered as WP(C) No. 56 of 1990

"Smt. K. Leima Devi & 194 ors. Vs. State of Manipur & 2 ors." praying

for regularising their Casual / Muster Roll service. The said writ petition

was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by an order dated

06-08-1990 by issuing the following directions:-

"The respondents are directed to absorb the petitioners in regular service in their respective posts according to rules by granting them exemption of age limit, if required, whenever vacancies arise provided the petitioners satisfy the requisite qualifications. Further we direct the respondents to pay the salaries and allowances etc. equal to that of regular employees doing similar work from the date of their absorption in their regular service."

[5] Pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in its order dated 06-08-1990 in WP(C) No. 56 of 1990, the Chief

Engineer (Power), Government of Manipur, issued an Office Order No.

561 dated 19-10-1991 ordering the conversion of 195 Muster Roll

WP(C) No. 355 of 2020 Contd.../-

workers, including the husband of the present petitioner, into Work-

Charge establishment w.e.f. 19-10-1991. In the said order, it was also

mentioned that the name of post and scale of pay into the Work-Charged

Establishment to which the Muster Roll employees converted shall be

issued separately. In the Annexure - I of the said order, the name of the

husband of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 56.

[6] Subsequently, the Chief Engineer (Power), Government of

Manipur, issued another Office Order No. 620 dated 07-11-1991

converting the service of 189 Muster Roll workers of Electricity

Department, Manipur into Work-Charged establishment w.e.f.

23-10-1991 to the post and scale of pay mentioned against their

names in the Annexure - A enclosed to the said order. In the said

Annexure - A, the name of the husband of the present petitioner is at

Sl. No. 12 (Chowkidar). Later on, on 26-08-1997, the Chief Engineer

(Power), Government of Manipur, issued a Corrigendum for replacing

the words as "absorbed into regular workcharged" in place of the

words "converted into workcharged" appearing in the 5th line of the

earlier Office Order No. 620 dated 07-11-1991. It is also mentioned in

the said Corrigendum that the said Corrigendum was issued in

compliance of the Supreme Court's order dated 06-08-1990 passed in

WP(C) No. 56 of 1990. For easy reference, the scanned copy of the said

Corrigendum is reproduced hereunder:-

 WP(C) No. 355 of 2020                                          Contd.../-





[7]        It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of the

petitioner served as regular Work-Charged employee in the Electricity

Department, Manipur, w.e.f. 23-10-1991 till 22-04-2000 on which date,

the husband of the petitioner expired while he was still in service. After

expiry of the petitioner's husband on 22-04-2000, the Office of the Chief

WP(C) No. 355 of 2020 Contd.../-

Engineer (Power) issued an Office Order No. 112 dated 22-05-2000

terminating the service of the petitioner's husband w.e.f. 22-04-2000.

[8] After expiry of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner earlier

approached this court by filing a writ petition registered as WP(C) No.

650 of 2009 praying for directing the respondents to grant to her the

family pension due payable to her upon the demise of her husband as

provided under the said Terminal Benefits Rules. The said writ petition

was disposed of by this court by an order dated 29-10-2018 by directing

the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass a

speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of

a copy of the said order. In purported compliance of the direction earlier

given by this court, the Secretariat: Power Department issued an order

dated 22-01-2020 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner only on the

ground that the Work-Charged service rendered by the petitioner

husband was not confirmed and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to

avail family pension as provided under the Terminal Benefits Rules.

Hence, the present writ petition.

[9] The respondents No. 1 to 3, i.e., the Principal Secretary/

Commissioner (Power), Government of Manipur, the Managing Director,

Manipur State Power Company Limited and the Administrative Officer,

Electricity Department, Government of Manipur filed a joint affidavit-in-

opposition and the respondent No. 6, i.e., the Principal Accountant

General, Manipur, also filed a separate affidavit-in-opposition. The stand

WP(C) No. 355 of 2020 Contd.../-

taken by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 6 are common. It is their stand

that as the petitioner's husband never rendered service as confirmed/

permanent Work-Charged employee in the Electricity Department,

neither the petitioner nor her husband was entitled to avail pension/

family pension as provided under the Terminal Benefits Rules. It has

also been averred that the authorities have duly considered the claim

made by the petitioner and as her husband never rendered service as

permanent/ confirmed Work-Charged employee, the petitioner is not

entitled to get family pension as provided under the Terminal Benefits

Rules.

[10] I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties at length and also carefully considered

all the materials available on record. On close scrutiny of the order

dated 22-01-2020 impugned in the present writ petition as well as the

averments made by the respondents in their respective affidavit-in-

opposition, it is crystal clear that the only ground taken by the

respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for availing family

pension is only on the ground that her husband never rendered service

as a confirmed/ permanent Work-Charged employee and as such,

neither the petitioner nor her husband is entitled to avail family pension/

pension as provided under the Terminal Benefits Rules. It is also the

stand of the respondents that as the petitioner's husband rendered

service for a period of only 9 (nine) years 3 (three) months and 14

(fourteen) days, which is short of 10 (ten) years required for confirmation,

WP(C) No. 355 of 2020 Contd.../-

the Work-Charged service of the deceased husband of the petitioner

was never confirmed.

[11] At paras. 2 to 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has made

specific averments that the husband of the petitioner initially entered

service as a Casual/ Muster Roll employee in the Electricity Department,

Government of Manipur, in the year 1979-1980 and that after rendering

for more than 10 years of service as a Muster Roll/ Casual employee,

the husband of the petitioner along with other Muster Roll/ Casual

workers approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a writ petition

and the said writ petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by

issuing certain directions to the respondents to absorb the petitioners in

regular service in their respective posts. It has also been clearly averred

by the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the Chief Engineer (Power), Manipur, after obtaining

approval from the Government of Manipur, issued orders absorbing

the services of 195 Muster Roll workers, including the husband of

the petitioner into Work-Charged establishment w.e.f. 19-10-1991.

Subsequently, another order dated 07-11-1991 was issued by the Chief

Engineer (Power), Manipur, after obtaining approval of the Government,

thereby converting the service of 189 Muster Roll workers of Electricity

Department, Manipur, including the husband of the petitioner into Work-

Charged establishment w.e.f. 23-10-1991 against the post and scale of

pay mentioned against their names as indicated in the said order.

Subsequent thereto, the Chief Engineer (Power), Manipur, issued

WP(C) No. 355 of 2020 Contd.../-

a Corrigendum dated 26-08-1997 clarifying that the words "converted

into Work-Charged" should be read as "absorbed into regular Work-

Charged" as mentioned in the earlier order, meaning thereby that the

Casual/ Muster Roll service of the petitioner's husband and other

Casual/ Muster Roll employees of the Electricity Department

had been absorbed in the regular Work-Charged establishment w.e.f.

23-10-1991. It is also clearly mentioned in the said Corrigendum as well

as in the earlier order that the said order as well as the Corrigendum

had been issued in compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order

dated 06-08-1990 passed in WP(C) No. 56 of 1990.

[12] In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No. 1 to

3 and 6, the specific and clear averments made by the petitioner about

the factum of their appointment as regular Work-Charged have not been

denied by the respondents. In my considered view, the authorities have

rejected the claim of the petitioner by issuing the impugned order dated

22-01-2020 without application of mind and without considering the

Corrigendum dated 26-08-1997 by which it was made clear that the

service of the husband of the petitioner and other Casual/ Muster Roll

employees have been absorbed into regular Work-Charged

establishment and that the said impugned order had been issued

arbitrarily and without application of mind. Accordingly, this court has no

hesitation to interfere with the order impugned in the present writ petition.

 WP(C) No. 355 of 2020                                              Contd.../-




[13]        On a plain reading of the Corrigendum dated 26-08-1997

along with Office Order No. 620 dated 07-11-1991 issued by the Chief

Engineer (Power), Manipur, which have been issued in compliance with

the order dated 06-08-1990 passed by the Supreme Court of India in

WP(C) No. 56 of 1990, this court is satisfied that the husband of the

petitioner had been absorbed into regular Work-Charged establishment

in the Electricity Department w.e.f. 23-10-1991 and he had rendered

service as regular Work-Charged for about 10 years and as such, this

court is of the considered view that the husband of the petitioner was

entitled to receive pension and upon his demise the petitioner is also

entitled to receive family pension as provided under the Terminal

Benefits Rules. The relevant rules of the Terminal Benefits Rules are

reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

"GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT (Pay Implementation Cell)

NOTIFICATION Imphal, the 8th September, 1994

No. 17/3/86/PIC: The Governor of Manipur is pleased to accord approval to make the following rules further to amend the Terminal Benefit for Work-Charged Staff of P.W.D., IFCD, PHED, MI and Electricity Rules, 1978

(i) These rules may be called the Terminal Benefit for work charge staff P.W.D., IFCD, PHED, M.I. and Electricity (Amendment) Rules 1994.

(ii) They shall come into force from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.

In rule 6(A) of the Terminal Benefit for work Charged Staff of P.W.D., IFCD, PHED, M.I., and Electricity, Rules 1978, the following rules shall be substituted namely:-

WP(C) No. 355 of 2020 Contd.../-

Rule 6(A) - Family pension as calculated under MCS (Pension) Rules 1979 as amended from time to time 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 21-6-1990 after rendering not less than 1 (one) year of service after 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 21-5-93 shall be paid.

Sd/-

(R.R. Rashmi) Secretary (Finance), Government of Manipur"

[14] In view of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove,

the present writ petition is allowed by issuing the following directions:-

(i) The impugned order dated 22-01-2020 issued by the

Secretariat: Power Department is hereby quashed and set

aside;

(ii) The respondents are hereby directed to pay to the petitioner

family pension due payable to her upon the demise of her

husband w.e.f. 22-04-2000 on which date the petitioner's

husband expired as provided under the Terminal Benefits

Rules as early as possible but not later than three months

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(iii) The petitioner is also directed to co-operate with the

authorities as and when the authorities require her to submit

any documents in connection with the payment of family

pension; and

WP(C) No. 355 of 2020 Contd.../-

(iv) It is made clear that in the event the respondents failed to

release the family pension due payable to the petitioner

within the stipulated period given hereinabove, the whole

amount of family pension due payable to the petitioner will

carry an interest of 9 percent per annum w.e.f. 22-04-2000 till

the actual payment of the said family pension.

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is

disposed of. There will be no order as to cost.

                                                    JUDGE

Devananda




 WP(C) No. 355 of 2020                                            Contd.../-