T.N.K. Singh, J.@mdashBy this writ petition, the Petitioner sought for a direction to the Respondents to pay family pension on the death of her son, Shri G. Brajamani Sharma, who was working as Junior Lecturer (Flute) in the Govt. Dance College, Imphal, Manipur.
2. I have heard Mr. L. Ashinikumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Md. Jalal Uddin learned G.A. for the Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well as Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned CGSC appearing for the Respondents 5 and 6.
3. The following short factual matrix will serve the purpose for deciding the point in controversy in the present writ petition. The writ Petitioner is the Anr. of one. Shri G. Brajamani Sharma, who was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Flute) in the Shree Shree Govindajee Nartanalaya on 7.3.1989 (Annexure A/1 to the present writ petition). The Shree Shree Govindajee Nartanalaya became a Government College under the Directorate of Arts and Culture, Govt. of Manipur and the service of the Petitioner''s son, Shri G. Brajamani Sharma was also absorbed as Junior Lecturer (Flute) in the Government Dance College, Imphal, Manipur vide orders No. 3/6/87-STE(AC) dated 16.3.1993 (Annexure A/2 to the writ petition). When Shri G. Brajamani Sharma was working as Junior Lecturer (Flute) in the Govt. Dance College, Imphal, he expired on 20.4.1996 Petitioner''s son, G. Brajamani Sharma, was bachelor when he died in harness. Late G. Brajamani Sharma was the only bread earner in the family of the Petitioner and the Petitioner had totally depended on her son late G. Brajamani Sharma, financially and other requirements in other words, the Petitioner was fully dependent on her late son, G. Brajamani Sharma, who left behind neither a widow nor any child as he died as a bachelor. After the death of her son, the present writ Petitioner approached the Respondents for payment of family pension, but the Respondents neglected to pay the family pension to the Petitioner. Accordingly she filed this writ petition. The Respondents 5 and 6 also filed their affidavit-in-opposition opposing the present writ petition only on the score that parent does not include in the definition of family for family pension under Rule 54(14)(b) of the C.C.S. Pension Rules, 1972. Respondents 1 to 4 also filed their affidavit-in-opposition to the present writ petition and in their affidavit-in-opposition they had mentioned very clearly that the Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Director (Arts and Culture) had submitted the family pension of papers of late G. Brajamani Sharma to the Deputy Secretary (Pension Cell), Govt. of Manipur and the Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Secretary, Department of Personnel (Pension), Govt. of Manipur had also submitted the said family pension papers and other necessary documents for the payment of family pension to the Accountant General, Manipur vide has office letter being No. 7/9/96-SC dated 17.9.96 and letter No. 363/92-PC(Pt)-1 dated 11.10.1996 respectively (Annexures-D/1 and D2 respectively to their affidavit-in-opposition) and also that the Accountant General, Manipur is the sanctioning authority in respect of payment of family pension to the Petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2, in their affidavit-in-opposition, reiterated that as the writ Petitioner is not entitled to get the family pension, there is no question of failure or neglect on the part of them to pay the family pension to the present writ Petitioner.
4. While the present writ petition is pending, the Govt. of Manipur issued an Office Memorandum being No. 9/86/99-PIC(A), Imphal, the 21st April, 1999 (Annexure-A/6 to the additional affidavit of the Petitioner), that the Govt. of Manipur was pleased to introduce modifications mentioned therein in the family pension under the Manipur Service (Pension) Rules, 1977. It may not be out of place to mention that the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 has been adopted and enforced by the State of Manipur w.e.f. 1.1.1977 vide notification No. 1/3/71-11/F dated 3.3.1977 under the title of Manipur Service (Pension) Rules, 1977. The relevant extract of the said Office Memorandum of the Govt. of Manipur dated 21.4.1999 for modification of the Manipur Service (Pension) Rules, 1977 is quoted hereunder.
Date of Effect
2.1 The revised provisions as per these orders shall apply to Government servants who retire/die-in harness on or after 1.1.1966. Separate orders will be issued in respect of employees who retired/died before 1.1.1996.
Family Pension 1964
6.1 Family Pension shall be calculated at the uniform rate of 30% of basic pay in all cases instead of slab system and shall be subject to a minimum of Rs. 1275/- p.m. and a maximum of 30% of the highest pay in the Govt. The highest pay in the Govt. is Rs. 30,000/- since 1.1.1996. Rule 54(2) relating to Family Pension, 1964 under Pension Rules shall stand modified to this extent and the existing table thereunder will be no longer operative.
6.2. For the purpose of grant of Family Pension, the definition of "Family" shall also include.
(a) ''parents'' who were wholly dependent on the Govt. servant when he/she was alive provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child (Classificatory orders in regard to determining dependency criteria in case of parents shall be issued separately).
(b) Son daughter including widowed/divorced Daughter till he/she attains the age of 25 years or upto the date of his/her marriage/remarriage, whichever is earlier (subject to income criterion to be notified separately).
In pursuance of the said orders of the Government of Manipur under Office Memorandum dated 21.4.1999 (supra), the Govt. of Manipur issued separate order under Office Memorandum No. 9/86/99-PIC(A), Imphal the 27th July, 1999(Annexure-X/I to the affidavit-in-opposition of Respondents 5 and 6). The relevant extracts of which are quoted hereunder.
No. 9/86/99-PIC(A): The undersigned is directed to refer to items (a) and (b) of para 6.2 of this Deptt. O.M. of even No. dated 21 st April, 1999 under which it has been stated that the definition of family for the purpose of family pension shall also include (i) parents who were wholly dependent on the Govt. servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child, and (ii) widowed/divorced daughter in respect of whom dependent/income criterion will be clarified separately.
4. Admissibility of family pension to parents and widowed divorced daughter will be effective from 1.1.1999 subject to fulfilment of other usual conditions. The cases where family pension has already been granted to sons daughters after 1.1.1999 before issue/implementation of this O.M. without imposition of earning condition need not be reopened.
5. From the combined reading of the said two memoranda of the Govt. of Manipur dated 21.4.99 and 27.7.99, it is crystal clear that the parents who are wholly dependent on the Govt. servant when he/she was alive provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child include in the definition of "Family" mentioned in Family Pension Rules, 1964 which has been incorporated as Rules 54 in Manipur Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1977. This being the upto date position of the Manipur Service (Pension) Rules, 1977, the Petitioner would be entitled to family pension as her son, late G. Brajamani Sharma, died on 20.4.1966 leaving behind neither a widow nor a child and she was fully dependent on her son, late G. Brajamani Sharma, with effect from 1.1.1996. I, therefore, of the considered view that the Petitioner in the instant case will be entitled to the family pension as per the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 21.4.1999 and 27.7.1999 with effect from 1.1.1996 and accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Respondents to pay family pension to the Petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order.
6. Despite the disposal of the present writ petition in the manner above said, it would be required to decide the important question of law as to whether para-2.1-"the revised provisions as per these orders shall apply to Govt. servant who retire/die-in-harness on or after 1.1.1996" of the Office Memorandum dated 21.4.1999 is tenable under the law or not. For deciding the above questions of law, a brief resume of fact and law about the pension of the retired government employees or/government employee die in harness is required to be considered.
7. The family pension came to be conceptualized in the year 1950. "It is now well settled that in the course of transformation of society from feudal to welfare and as socialistic thinking acquired respectability, State obligation to provide security in old age, an escape from undeserved want was recognized and as a first step pension was treated not only as a reward for past service but with a view to helping employee to avoid destitution in old age. The quid pro quo was that when the employee was physically and mentally alert, he rendered upto the master the best, expecting him to look after him in the fall of live. A retirement system therefore exists solely for the purpose of providing benefits. Pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also as a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the hey day of life to your employer, in the days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. Thus, the pension payable to a government employee is a earned by rendering long and efficient service and, therefore, can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered."
8. The above quotation is a part of the judgment rendered by Justice
9. After exhaustive consideration of "pension to civil employee of the Court and defence personnel as administrator in India" in a catena of cases by the Apex Court, it has now been settled that the pension is neither a bounty nor matter of grace depending on the sweet will of the employer and it creates a vested right to the retired employee and widow and minor dependent of the retired employee. In fact, pension is not merely a statutory right but also the fulfilment of a constitution promise of the employer to make effective the constitution mandate. The entitlement of family pension only to the government employee who retired/died in harness on or after 1.1.1996 will amount to class legislation of the homogeneous group of retired employee died in harness and Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classifications. For the purpose or reasonable classification, the Apex Court in a eatena of cases held that such classifications must satisfy the twin-tests of classifications, i.e. (1) that classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from Ors. , and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the legislation. The thrush of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is that a citizen is entitled to equality before law and equal protection of laws. Therefore, the state government is duty bound to satisfy the court that the twin-tests have been satisfied. The court can only be satisfied if the State establishes not only the rational principle on which classification is founded but co-relative to the objects sought to be achieved.
10. The said Office Memorandum dated 21.4.1999 for payment of family pension to the government employees who retired/died in harness on or after 1.1.1996 shall create arbitrary and class legislation amongst the harmonious group of retired government employee or/died in harness and the said classification does not have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the State government in payment of pension inasmuch as family pension is a social security measure fordoing socio-economic justice to the employee as a reward for the past service he had rendered unto the employer to the best. When he was physically and mentally alert and expecting to look after him in the fall of life. In the landmark decision of the Apex Court in
65. That is the end of the journey. With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice, the socialist Republic and welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria: ''being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date'' for being eligible for the liberalized pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalized pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalized pension scheme of ''being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date in impugned memoranda. Exhibits P-1 and P-2 violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down. Both the memoranda shall be enforced and implemented as read down as under: In other words, in Ext. P-1, the words:
that in respect of the Government servants who were in service on the 31st March, 1979 and retiring from service on or after that date.
and in Exhibit P-2 the words:
the new rates of pension are effective from 1 st April, 1979 and will be applicable to all service officers who became non-effective on or after that date.
Are unconstitutional and are struck down with this specification that the date mentioned therein will be relevant as being one from which the liberalized pension scheme becomes operative to all pensioners governed by 1972. Rules irrespective of the date of retirement. Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalized pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of reitirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible. Let a writ to that effect be issued. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
11. The Apex Court in
12. From the reasons discussed above, I am of the considered view that extension of benefit of family pension under the said Office Memorandum of the Govt. of Manipur dated 21.4.1999 on the basis of date of retirement of the Govt. employee will amount to class legislation of the homogeneous group of retired government employee who retired or/died-in-haraess and it is also arbitrary. I, therefore, hold that the said portion of the Office Memorandum dated 21.4.1999-"the revised provision as per these orders shall apply to Govt. servants, who retired/die-in harness on or after 1.1.1996" is illegal and arbitrary.
