1. Claim for family pension and retiral dues by widow of a work-charged employee of a statutory housing board. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1283
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, JJ.
Sunita Burman – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, M. P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7068 of 2022: against the judgment dated 23.1.2020 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 1600 of 2018 reversing the order dated 6.9.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 95 of 2007
Decided on : 14.10.2022
Advocates appeared:
S. K. Gangele for appellant; R. C. Mishra for respondents No. 1 to 5; Saurabh Mishra, Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 6/State.
S. K. Gangele for appellant; R. C. Mishra for respondents No. 1 to 5; Saurabh Mishra, Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 6/State.
Work-charged employees of an autonomous body are not entitled to family pensions under general civil service rules if specifically excluded. Entitlement depends on the body's specific regulations and whether the employee opted into available schemes, such as the National Pension Scheme (NPS).
Headnote:
Civil Services -- family pension -- deceased working in work-charged establishment of M. P. Housing Board -- Housing Board is statutory and autonomous body -- rules laid down by State Government for its employees not automatically applicable to employees of Housing Board unless specifically adopted by Housing Board -- M. P. (Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 not adopted by Housing Board -- M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 does not cover workers of work-charged establishments of Housing Board -- M. P. Daily Wages Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 adopted -- services of work-charged employees regulated, bringing them within purview of National Pension Scheme -- deceased was not regular employee -- remained work-charged employee till date of demise -- did not opt for National Pension scheme -- appellant wife not entitled to receive family pension. (2019) 10 SCC 516 distinguished. 1988 SCC Online P&H 338 referred to. [Paras 7, 10, 11, 14 & 15
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether appointment to a work-charged establishment constitutes regularization entitling the employee to pension or requires opting into the National Pension Scheme. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Statutory bodies govern service conditions via own regulations; work-charged employees are excluded from civil service pension rules and must opt for available schemes. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Work-charged employees not regularized into permanent service are not entitled to pension unless they opt for a specific scheme like the National Pension Scheme. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Appeal dismissed; judgment upholding the denial of family pension is affirmed. (Para 16 )
6. Do State Government pension rules automatically apply to employees of a statutory autonomous body?
No. A statutory and autonomous body forms its own rules and policies. State Government rules are not automatically applicable to the employees of such a body unless specifically adopted by the Board. (Para 7 )
7. Are employees in a work-charged establishment generally entitled to pension under civil service rules?
No. For example, the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 specifically exclude persons in a work-charged establishment from its application. (Para 7 , 10 )
8. Does appointment to a work-charged establishment equate to regularization for pension purposes?
No. Appointment to a work-charged establishment is distinct from regularization into a regular post. Only regularized employees are treated as regular employees for the purpose of receiving pension benefits. (Para 14 , 15 )
9. How can work-charged employees in a non-pensionable establishment obtain pension benefits?
They may do so by exercising an option to become members of the National Pension Scheme (NPS), which involves a percentage deduction from wages matched by the employer's contribution. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 )
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.
