The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to family pension under the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978, and the criticism of the unreasonable denial of the pension, citing violation of constitutional articles.

Kh. Nobin Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri L. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Shyam Sharma, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3, Shri S. Rupachandra, ASG appearing for the respondent No. 4 and Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for release of family pension under the provisions of the Terminal Benefits for Work-Charged Staff of PWD, IFC, PHE, MI and Electricity Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978).

The facts in brief are as under:

"The petitioner is the wife of the deceased Government employee, Shri (L) A. Ganeshore Singh who was initially appointed as work-charged employee on 01-08-1986 to the post of Handyman in the Mechanical Division No. 1, Public Works Department, Manipur. While serving as work-charged employee, the petitioner's husband expired on 12-04-1996 living behind him his wife, sons and daughters. Consequent upon the death of the petitioner's husband, his service was terminated w.e.f. 12-04-1996 vide order dated 22-05-1996 issued by the then Chief Engineer (PWD), Manipur. The work-charged employment of the petitioner's husband was confirmed w.e.f. 01-04-1995 vide office order dated 03-06-1999 issued by the then Chief Engineer (PWD), Manipur. In the said order dated 03-06-1999, the name of the petitioner's husband was wrongly shown as A. Janeshore Singh and the error was rectified by issuing a Corrigendum dated 05-10-1995 showing the name of the petitioner's husband as Shri A. Ganeshore Singh in place of A. Janeshore Singh.

After the expiry of the petitioner's husband and on completion of the compilation of pension papers along with relevant documents and due verification of the service of the petitioner's husband, the then Chief Engineer vide its letter dated 22-10-2010 submitted the pension papers to the Joint Secretary (Pension Cell), Manipur for payment of C.C.R.G. and pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after a lapse of more than 2(two) years from the date of submission of the said pension papers, the respondents have not released family pension to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is being filed to redress her grievances."

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that by the time when the petitioner's husband died on 12-04-1996, the petitioner's husband had completed more than 1 (one) year of service after confirmation and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to family pension under the provisions of the Terminal Benefits for Work-Charged Staff of PWD, IFC, PHE, MI and Electricity Rules, 1978. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in similar cases and in particular W.P. (C) No. 1445 of 2003, the Government of Manipur, Secretariat: Department of Personnel (Pension Cell) vide its notification dated 24-10-2005 has accorded approval to the payment of family pension in compliance of the order dated 01-03-2005 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the said case and connected cases. Since the case of the petitioner having been not considered, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 28-12-2008 to the respondents requesting for release of family pension to the petitioner. Inspite of the receipt of the said representation, the respondents have not released the family pension and the act of the respondents in not granting the family pension to the petitioner is not only discriminatory but illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and vindictive.

4. The present writ petition is contested by the respondents No. 1 to 5 by filing separate and independent affidavits. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it is stated that the petitioner's husband died on 12-04-1996 after rendering 9 (nine) years 7 (seven) months and 12 (twelve) days and his service was terminated vide order dated 22-05-1996. Howeve