Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Ahanthem Bimol Singh, J.
T. Bina Devi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Manipur & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 852 of 2019
Decided On : 18-10-2022
Pensionary Benefits - Government Service - General Financial Rule, 1963, Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur, 1972 - Summary of Acts and Sections: General Financial Rule, 1963, Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur, 1972 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 42-A of the General Financial Rules, 1963 and Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur, 1972, and their applicability to the retrospective promotion of the petitioner. The court highlighted that the office memorandum dated 10.10.2005, which declared the promotion irregular and ab-initio null and void, did not have retrospective effect and therefore was not applicable to the petitioner's case. The court emphasized that the petitioner's retrospective promotion did not entail any financial benefit and was in line with the government's policy and approval. The court also cited relevant judgments to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and concluded that the objections raised by the respondents were unreasonable and arbitrary, directing the respondents to expedite the finalization for payment of the petitioner's pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, sought the release of her pensionary and other entitled retiral benefits without delay. The respondents raised objections based on the irregularity of the petitioner's retrospective promotion, leading to a delay in finalizing the pension payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the objections raised by the respondents to be unreasonable and arbitrary, emphasizing that the petitioner's retrospective promotion did not violate any existing rules and was not irregular. The court directed the respondents to expedite the finalization for payment of the petitioner's pension within two months.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the objections raised by the respondents regarding the irregularity of the petitioner's retrospective promotion and its impact on the finalization of her pensionary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the General Financial Rule, 1963, and Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur, 1972, emphasizing that the petitioner's retrospective promotion did not violate any existing rules and was not irregular. The court also highlighted that the objections raised by the respondents were unreasonable and arbitrary.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to expedite the finalization for payment of the petitioner's pension within two months, with a provision for interest if the payment was delayed.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A Vashum, learned G.A. appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.
2. The present writ petition had been filed with a prayer for directing the respondents to release/pay the pensionary and other entitled retiral benefits of the petitioner without causing any undue delay.
3. The facts of the present case in brief is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher with effect from 01.01.1980 by an order dated 29.03.1982 issued by the Secretary (Edn.), Government of Manipur. Subsequently, while the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Graduate Teacher in the Takyel Khongbal Junior High School, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, issued an order dated 26.06.1992 thereby upgrading the service of the petitioner to the post of Graduate Teacher with retrospective effect from 01.01.1988. The said order had been issued pursuant to the Government's approval to the upgradation/promotion of Under-Graduate Teachers in Government's School to Graduate Teachers, vide Government's Letter dated 09.01.1990. In the said order, it is also clearly mentioned that the pay of the petitioner in the upgraded post will be notionally with effect from 01.01.1988 and the actual payment of the upgraded post shall be made only with effect from 23.06.1992 meaning thereby that no financial benefit for the period of retrospective upgradation/promotion was given to the petitioner.
4. On the recommendation of a Screening Committee in its meeting held on 20.06.2000 and after verification of the service book, ACRs and integrity and on completion of 12/15 years of regular service in the grade, the petitioner was granted senior scale of pay with effect from 01.01.2000, vide order dated 30.06.2000 issued by the ZEO, I.D. Zone - I, Government of Manipur. By another order dated 04.07.2000 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, the petitioner was granted Trained Graduate Teachers' Scale of Pay with effect from 07.09.1999, consequent upon her successfully passing B.Ed. Training Examination. It will be pertinent to mention here that the said Senior Scale of Pay and Trained Graduate Scale of Pay was granted to the petitioner in terms of and after fulfilling the conditions provided under the relevant rules.
5. Subsequently, on the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 07.11.2016 in association with the Manipur Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed on promotion to the post of Lecturer of Higher Secondary Education under the Education (S) Department, Government of Manipur with effect from 24.05.2018 by an order dated 24.05.2018 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur. While the petitioner was serving as a Lecturer (English) in the Nambol Higher Secondary School, she retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.01.2018 and her service was terminated by an order dated 02.02.2019 issued by the Commissioner (Education-S), Government of Manipur. After her retirement from service, all the necessary pension papers of the petitioner was submitted to the Accountant General (A & E), Manipur by the Under Secretary (Pension Cell), Government of Manipur, under cover of a letter dated 10.04.2019 with a request for taking early necessary action for payment of the petitioner's pensionary and other retiral benefits. After submission of her pension papers, the concerned authority of the Government released the amounts due payable to the petitioner under her GPF, Group Insurance Scheme and Unutilised Earned Leave. However, the pension of the petitioner had not been released by the respondents even after about 4 (four) years from the date of her retirement. Having been aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for redressing her grievances.
6. The reason as given by
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a retrospective promotion without financial benefit does not necessarily violate the General Financial Rule, 1963, and Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rul....
Vested rights cannot be retroactively revoked by legislative amendments unless explicitly stated, ensuring protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The promotions of the petitioners were in conformity with the Rules of 1989, and the objections raised by the State were not valid.
An employee need not wait for twelve months from the fixation of his/her pay in the new scale for earning in the revised scale.
The retrospective application of General Financial Rules and the denial of a fair opportunity to defend oneself are impermissible under the law.
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
