Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Ahanthem Abani Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 41 of 2022
Decided On : 11-04-2022
Mandamus - Pensionary Benefits - Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977 - Rule 13 - Office Memorandum dated 5.7.2003
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought mandamus to count their service from initial officiating appointment in 1986 till regularization for pensionary benefits under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1977 read with Office Memorandum dated 5.7.2003.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' initial appointment was interrupted by contract engagement, but their service was regularized without break from the initial officiating appointment, entitling them to pensionary benefits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners' service could be counted from initial officiating appointment for pensionary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' service, though interrupted by contract appointment, was regularized without break, making them eligible for pensionary benefits under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1977 and the Office Memorandum dated 5.7.2003.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to count the petitioners' service from initial officiating appointment for pensionary benefits.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the service of the petitioners commencing from the initial officiating appointment with effect from 3.2.1986 till the regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 13 of Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977 [for short, 'the Rules of 1977'] read with Office Memorandum dated 5.7.2003.
2. Heard Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. L. Monomala, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioners is that on the recommendation of the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the petitioners were appointed as Fish Farm Assistant, Revenue Assistant, Gear Assistant, Fish Farm Attendant, Craft Assistant and Laboratory Assistant on officiating basis against the temporary posts lying vacant in the Fishery Department. The petitioners after appointment have been discharging their duties properly and effectively to the satisfaction of their superiors continuously without any break. However, they were suddenly terminated from service without giving any opportunity. Thereafter, by the order dated 16.12.1998, the Director of Fisheries has reinstated two petitioners on officiating basis to the posts shown against their names. By the order dated 19.12.2011, the Director of Fisheries converted the officiating appointments to contract appointment by protecting their pay.
4. Further case of the petitioners is that the State Government has issued the Office Memorandum dated 5.7.2003 for linking up the service rendered as ad hoc/officiating etc. for counting the qualifying service for pension. On 3.1.2020, the first petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent authorities to count his service as valid qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, but no action has been taken by the respondent authorities.
5. According to the petitioners, their case is squarely covered by Rule 13 of the Rules of 1977 read with the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 5.7.2003 and the petitioners are entitled to count the entire period of service commencing from the initial officiating appointment with effect from 3.2.1986 for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
6. The respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioners were initially appointed on officiating basis followed by contract engagement and as such, the claim of the petitioners that their services have been regularized without any break from the date of their initial officiating appointment is without any legal. From a reading of the Office Memorandum dated 5.7.2003, it is clear that the initial officiating or temporary service shall be followed without interrupting by substantive appointment. However, in the case on hand, by the order dated 19.12.2011, the officiating services of the petitioners were converted into contract appointment and thus the officiating service of the petitioner was interrupted by the contract appointment before their subsequent regularization with effect from 13.12.2019. As such, the provisions for service link up for the purpose of pensionary benefits contained in the Office Memorandum dated 5.7.2003 are not applicable to the case of the petitioners and the same cannot also be extended to the petitioners.
7. It is stated that the State Government is not denying pension benefits to the petitioners. As a policy decision, the State Government has adopted the New Pension Scheme (NPS) for employees appointed after 1.1.2005 and in other words, all State Government employees appointed after 1.1.2005 have been enrolled under the NPS and the petitioners will also be enrolled under the NPS so as to enable them to enjoy the pension benefits.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed as Fish Farm Assistant, Revenue Assistant, Gear Assistant, Fish Farm Attendant, Craft Assistant and Laboratory A
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entire length of service from the date of initial appointment should be considered for the purposes of fixation of pensionary benefits.
Pension is a right that cannot be arbitrarily denied; employees with long-term service against sanctioned posts are entitled to have their past service counted for pension benefits, regardless of the....
Inaction by the State in not regularizing long-serving employees cannot deprive them of valid pension benefits under existing rules, irrespective of completed qualifying service requirements.
State delays in regularizing services do not justify withholding pension benefits for long-serving employees; equal treatment and fair engagement practices must be upheld.
The petitioners cannot claim regularization of their services from the date of initial appointment and were entitled to count only half of their service rendered in consolidated pay posts for pension....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioners would violate the equality clause under the Constitution of India.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
