Work Charged Employee Pension Dispute

The court’s in-depth legal analysis delves into the intricacies of pension entitlement for work charged employees in the housing sector. This summary scrutinizes the applicability of pension rules, the autonomy of statutory bodies, and the importance of employee categorization in pension disputes.

Facts

• The appellant, widow of Late Munna Lal Burman, appealed the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
• The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s order and held that the deceased husband was not entitled to pension
• The Division Bench reasoned that the deceased husband, a member of the work charged establishment, could not be treated at par with regular employees of the Housing Board
• Appellant’s husband was engaged by Housing Board as a Muster Roll employee on daily wages in 1977.
• Appellant filed a writ petition seeking family pension, retiral dues, gratuity, etc., after her husband’s demise in April 2016.
• Despite working in the Housing Board establishment, the appellant was initially denied family pension as per an office order.
• Appellant’s applications for family pension were turned down by the Housing Board in October 2016, citing an absence of provisions for employees in the work charged establishment.
• The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur allowed the writ petition in September 2018, directing the Housing Board to fix retiral dues and family pension for the appellant in a time-bound manner, including releasing arrears of family pension with interest.

Also Read: Time as Essence of Contract in Sale Agreement: Legal Analysis

Issue

• The issue in consideration is whether the deceased husband of the appellant was a regular employee of the respondent No.1 – Housing Board.
• The appellant’s entitlement to receive family pension if the deceased had remained a work charged employee in the establishment of the respondent No.1 – Housing Board is also at question.
• The Housing Board is a statutory and autonomous body with its own rules and policies governing employee service conditions.
• State Government rules do not automatically apply to Housing Board employees unless specifically adopted by the Board.
• Sections 14, 15, and 17 of the Housing Board Act highlight appointment, service conditions, and the Board’s power to make service regulations.
• M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules do not apply to work-charged employees as per Rule 2(ii).
• There are no provisions for pension in the M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal Regulations or the Housing and Infrastructure Development Board Regulations.
• The Board of Directors adopted rules in a meeting on 06 April 2015 due to the absence of regulations for work charged employees.

Also Read: Retirement Age of PTI/Sports Officer in University

Arguments

• Mr. S.K. Gangele argued that the High Court erred in holding that the appellant’s husband, a work charged employee, is not entitled to pension.
• Reference was made to the office order dated 29 October, 1997, which aimed to regularize Muster Roll employees based on seniority.
• It was highlighted that pension/family pension was payable to the appellant’s husband under Regulation 5(d) of the M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal Regulations, 1998.
• The appellant’s husband was listed at serial No.5 of the tabulated statement, indicating his regularization as a regular employee of the Housing Board.
• The judgment in the case of Prem Singh (supra) had no application to the facts of the instant case.
• Late Munna Lal Burman and other similar daily wage Muster Roll employees were appointed in the work charged establishment based on an office order dated 28 October, 1997.
• The deceased employee had not been regularized until his demise and remained a work-charged employee.
• The work charged establishment where the deceased worked was non-pensionable, and he could have opted for the National Pension Scheme but didn’t.
• The appellant is not entitled to receive family pension based on the above circumstances.

Also Read: Appeal of the Appellant against the Impugned Judgment of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack Directing the Approval of Respondent No.5’s Appointment and Release of Block Grant in His Favour

Analysis

• The service of the appellant in the case had been regularized on a vacant post.
• Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 was read down to include services rendered prior to regularization as qualifying for pension benefits.
• Work charged employees were given the option to join the NPS as per an order dated 02 July, 2015.
• Deceased husband of the appellant was not a regular employee of the Housing Board and did not opt for the NPS scheme during his lifetime.
• Only 16 out of 48 work charged employees opted for the NPS pension scheme as per the order.
• The Madhya Pradesh Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 were not adopted by the Housing Board for its employees.
• The deceased husband remained a work charged employee until his demise, but did not opt for the NPS scheme.
• The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 did not cover workers in work charged establishments of the Housing Board.
• The Court had earlier affirmed the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a similar case
• Examined several decisions related to the exclusion of work charged services from qualifying for pension
• Perused the Note appended to Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations
• The appellant is not entitled to receive family pension from the respondent No 1 – Housing Board.
• There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, which is upheld.

Decision

• The present appeal is dismissed.
• Each party is responsible for their own expenses.

Case Title: SUNITA BURMAN Vs. THE COMMISSIONER M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE (2022 INSC 1090)

Case Number: C.A. No.-007068-007068 / 2022

Click here to read/download original judgement