JUDGMENT

Kohli, J.

1. The appellant – widow of Late Munna Lal Burman, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 23rd January, 2020, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 1600 of 2018 reversing the order dated 06.09.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 95 of 2007 whereunder the respondent No. 1 – M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board [For short ‘Housing Board’] was directed to pay family pension and other retiral dues to her on the demise of her husband.

2. The admitted facts of the case are that on 28th April, 1977, Munna Lal Burman, husband of the appellant was engaged by the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board as a Muster Roll employee on daily wages. Vide office order dated 29th October, 1997, he was appointed in the work charged establishment of the Housing Board. While continuing to work in the establishment, Munna Lal Burman expired on 26th April, 2016. On 01st August, 2016 and 09th September, 2016, the appellant submitted applications to the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board for grant of family pension which were turned down vide letter dated 14th October, 2016, with an observation that there was no provision for grant of pension/family pension to employees working in the work charged establishment. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant filed a writ petition registered as Writ Petition No. 95 of 2017 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur praying inter alia for grant of family pension, retiral dues, gratuity etc., on the demise of her husband. The said petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 06th September, 2018 and the respondent No. 1 Housing Board was directed to fix the retiral dues and family pension payable to the appellant in a time bound manner and release the arrears of family pension with interest. The reasons that weighed with the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition are as follows :-

“12. In the present matter, it is clear from the order of appointment dated 29.10.1997 that the provisions of M.P. Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Rules were made applicable in the case of Late Munnalal. Regulation 5(d) of M.P, Gruha Nirman Mandal Regulations, 1998 provides that grant of pension/family pension and death-cum-retirement benefits to the regular officers and employees of the Board with effect from 1.7.1973 shall be regulated in accordance with M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

13. The M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board has adopted the Regulations, 2015, which has been approved and confirmed by the State Government vide order No.F.23- 3/15/18-6 Bhopal dated 17.4.2015. The regulations 5(e) of the 2015 Regulations provides that the order of grant of pension/family pension and death-cum-retirement benefit to the regular officers and employees of the Board with effect from 1.7.1973 shall be regulated in accordance with. the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. However, the regular officers and servants of the Board who have been appointed, on or after Ist of January, 2005, shall be covered by new National Pension Scheme. Hence, it is clear that the National Pension Scheme was not applicable to the deceased employee, as he was not appointed on or after Ist January, 2005. Hence, the mistake committed by the respondent-Board in deduction of Rs.1940/- from the salary of late Munnalal under the National Pension Scheme, seems bonafide.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board preferred an appeal registered as Writ Appeal No.1600 of 2018 that was allowed by the Division Bench, vide judgment dated 23rd January, 2020 and it was held that the deceased husband of the appellant being a member of the work charged establishment, was not entitled to pension as he could not be treated at par with the regular employees of the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board.

4. Mr. S.K. Gangele,