1. These two writ petitions involve common question of facts and laws and as such they are taken up jointly for hearing as well as for passing common judgment and order.

2 Heard Mr. Ch. Robinchandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Suresh Sarangthem, learned Junior Advocate to the learned A.G., Manipur for the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 4 in respect of W.P(C) No. 62 of 2005 and Mr. Suresh Sarangthem, learned Junior Advocate to the learned A.G., Manipur for the respondents 1,2 and 3 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 in respect of W.P(C) No. 63 of 2005.

3. By these two writ petitions, the writ petitioners are seeking for a direction to the respondents for granting family pensions if they are entitled to as per the 'Terminal Benefits for Work-charged Staff of PWD,IFC,PHE,MI,Electricity, Rules 1978 (as amended from time to time)'. The writ petitioner of W.P(C) No. 62 of 2005 is the wife of late K. Bahu Singh who was initially appointed as Muster Roll Worker in the Public Works Deptt. (PWD), Manipur. While Shri K. Bahu Singh was serving as Muster Roll Worker, his Muster Roll service was converted to Work-charged Khalasi vide office order No. 828 dated 7.12.1979 (Annexure-A/1 in W.P(C) No. 62/05) issued by the respondent No. 2 (the Chief Engineer, PWD, Manipur), thereafter his work-charged service was confirmed under order No. 322 dated 5.9.1991 (Annexure-A/2 in W.P© No. 62/05) issued by the respondent No. 2(the Chief Engineer, PWD, Manipur). In the said order of the respondent no.2, the Chief Engineer, PWD, Manipur, dated 5.9.1991, the name of K. Bahu Singh appears at sl. No. 4. While he (i.e. K. Bahu Singh) was serving as Workcharged Khalasi, he died on 13.12.1989. On his expiry, the respondent No. 2 (i.e. the Chief Engineer, PWD, Manipur) issued office order No. 243 dated 30th July, 1991 (Annexure-A/3 in W.P(C) No. 62/05) for terminating his service w.e.f. 13.12.1989. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached the competent authority for granting her the pensionary benefits under the Terminal Benefits for Work-charged staff of PWD, IFC, PHE, MI, Electricity, Rules, 1978 (as amended from time to time) (for short 'the Terminal Benefit Rules,1978), but she is not still getting the pensionary benefits.

4. The petitioner of W.P(C) No. 63 of 2005 is the wife of late M. Mani Singh who was initially appointed as Muster Roll Worker in the Irrigation and Flood Control Deptt., Govt. of Manipur. While he (i.e. M. Mani Singh) was serving as Muster Roll Worker, he was again appointed as Work-charged Road Mohorrir along with others vide office order No. 351 dated 25th March, 1981 (Annexure-A/1 in W.P. (C) No. 63/05) and posted at Singda Irrigation Division, IFC Deptt., Manipur. Shri Suresh Sarangthem, learned Jr. Advocate to the learned A.G. pointed out that only in the year 1994, the respondent no.2 (i.e. the Chief Engineer, IFCD in W.P.(C) No. 63/05), issued office order No. 199 dated 25th January,1994 for confirming the work-charged services of late M. Mani Singh, the husband of the writ petitioner in W.P(C) No. 63/2005 along with others w.e.f. 1.10.1986 (Annexure-A/3 in W.P(C) No. 63/05). His further submission is that since the said order of the respondent no.2 was issued after the death of M. Mani Singh, the petitioner (i.e. wife of late M. Mani Singh) may not be entitled to get family pension under the said Terminal Benefit Rules, 1978. It is a well settled principle of law that the employee may not suffer for the administrative lapse of the employer. In this regard, I may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Shri Amrik Singh and others - vrs - Union of India and others, reported in (1980) 3SCC 393. From the above facts, it is clear that Shri K. Bahu Singh's work-charged service was confirmed w.e.f. 1.10.1986 and also that Shri K. Bahu Singh while he was serving as Work-charged employee, di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document