SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Manipur) 96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Kh. Chaoba Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 406 of 2016
Decided On : 14-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. S. Samarjeet, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Y. Ashang, GA, for the Respondents

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of retired college teachers to receive revised pension from specific dates as per the statutory provisions and previous court judgments, emphasizing the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the unequal treatment of retired college teachers in comparison to other State Government pensioners.

Headnote:

pension - retired teachers - Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 - 5.5.2010 - 12.8.2011 - 24.12.2011 - 1.10.2009, 1.3.2010, 1.7.2010, 1.11.2010, 1.11.2020 - The court discussed the applicability of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010, the order dated 12.8.2011, and the impugned Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 in relation to the payment of increased pension/family pension to retired college teachers. The court highlighted the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the entitlement of the petitioners to receive revised pension from specific dates as per the statutory provisions and previous court judgments.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, retired teachers/equivalent cadre of the Government Colleges, sought to quash an Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 and to direct the respondents to pay the revised pension with effect from specific dates instead of 1.11.2010 as stated in the memorandum.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were entitled to receive revised pension from specific dates as per the statutory provisions and previous court judgments. The impugned Office Memorandum was set aside, and the respondents were directed to pay the revised pension to the petitioners within a specified period.

Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of pension rules to retired college teachers, the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the entitlement of the petitioners to receive revised pension from specific dates.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned Office Memorandum violated the petitioners' entitlement to receive revised pension from specific dates as per the statutory provisions and previous court judgments. The court also emphasized the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the unequal treatment of retired college teachers in comparison to other State Government pensioners.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to pay the revised pension to the petitioners within a specified period.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2021 issued by the first respondent regarding payment of increased pension/family pension on revision of pay from 01.11.2010 and to direct the respondents to pay the revised pension with effect from 1.10.2009 instead of 1.11.2010 to the petitioners 1 to 13; with effect from 1.3.2010 instead of 1.11.2010 to the petitioners 14 to 16; with effect from 1.7.2010 instead of 1.11.2010 to the 17th petitioner and with effect from 1.10.2009 to the petitioners 18 and 19 instead of 1.11.2020as has been done in the case of other State Government pensioners.

2. Heard Mr.S.Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Y.Ashang, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they are retired teachers/equivalent cadre of the Government Colleges under the Department of Higher and Technical Education. By a notification dated 5.5.2010 issued by the Finance Department, the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 [for short, 'the Rules of 2010'} came into force notionally from 1.10.2006 with cash payment from 1.4.2010. After introduction of the Rules of 2010, the State Government issued an Office Memorandum dated 5.5.2010 modifying the Rules regulating pension/family pension etc. The second respondent issued an order dated 20.9.2021 for grant of arrears of pension/family pension in respect of those Government employees who retired or expired prior to 1.10.2009 for 6 months from 1.10.2009 to 31.3.2010 in two equal installment subject to the condition that the arrears of pension/family pension during the period from 1.1.2006 to 30.9.2009 should be only the difference between the revised basic pension/basic family pension and the pre-revised basic pension/family pension plus dearness allowance.

4. Further case of the petitioners is that an order dated 12.8.2011 was issued revising the scale of pay of different categories of the College Teachers and the said order so speaks about the applicability of the Rules relating to pension, family pension, gratuity and encashment of leave salary/leave of any kind ex-gratia compensation, provident fund etc. as applicable to the State Government employees to the College teachers. In fact the petitioners have enjoyed the fruits of the order dated 12.8.2011 after retirement from service. However, the State Government paid the revised pension with effect from 1.11.2010 instead with effect from 1.4.2010. The first respondent issued impugned Office Memorandum stating that the revised/increased pension in respect of College teachers will be effect from 1.11.2020. According to the petitioners, the State Government has not paid the revised pension with effect from 1.10.2009 to the petitioners though the same has been paid in the case of other State Government pensioners.

5. Assailing the impugned Office Memorandum, Mr. Salam Samarjeet, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are retired State Government employees and that since the revised pay scale with effect from 1.4.2010, though extended to other State Government pensioners, has not been extended to the retired College teachers, including the petitioners (now re-designated/equivalent grades), the All Manipur Retired Government College Teachers' Association submitted a representation on 9.9.2011 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister to redress their grievance. He would submit that instead of redressing their grievance for payment of revised pension with effect from 1.4.2010, the first respondent issued an Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 stating that the revised/increased pension in respect of the College teachers will be effective from 1.11.2010.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that in respect of other State Government pensioners who retired or expired prior to 1.10.2009, the second respondent issued another order on 20.9.2011 granting arrears of pension/family pension for six months from 1.10.2009

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top