Brigita Wahlang vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors

The petitioner's husband (L) Homber Hynniewta was temporarily appointed as Driver in the office of the Directorate of Agriculture, Shillong on 14th March, 1988 in the scale of pay of Rs. 350-10-400-EB-11-510-EB-13-575/-p.m. plus usual allowances as admissible under rules, issued by the Directorate of Agriculture, Shillong. Thereafter, his service was confirmed vide confirmation order dated 22nd May, 2002 with effect from 04.08.1995, after which the name of the deceased employee was also placed in the seniority lists along with other employees. Subsequently, vide order dated 06.08.2002, the services of the deceased employee were temporarily transferred/allotted from the Agriculture Department to the Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department and vide order dated 19.08.2005, his services were placed under the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Meghalaya, Shillong. The deceased employee continued his service in the said Department till his retirement on 13.11.2016 and before his pension papers or pensionary benefits could be finalized, the deceased employee expired on 08.12.2016. The petitioner being the wife of the deceased employee then approached the authorities for release of the pensionary benefits as permissible and also for grant of family pension, but received only the amount for Leave Encashment and General Provident Fund, which had been subscribed to by her deceased husband. Being aggrieved thereby on denial of pensionary benefits inspite of long years of service, the petitioner is before this Court for appropriate directions to release the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee.

Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that ever since the deceased employee entered in service he was put on a regular scale of pay placed in seniority lists and was also confirmed in service. He submits that the stand taken by the respondents is that, the services of the deceased employee not being regularized had rendered the said employee ineligible to be allowed the pension as prayed, and that further even if the service were to be regularized it would be prospective, which would place the deceased employee under the new pension scheme which was contributory and therefore of no use to the petitioner.

The learned counsel has drawn this Court's attention to the impugned letter dated 11.07.2018, wherein the said information is contained and submits that the same is unwarranted and misplaced, inasmuch as, the deceased employee had rendered service of over twenty-eight years and as such, is entitled to all service benefits. He also submits that the Department has also pursued the office of the Respondent No. 2 for regularization of the deceased employee's service, but the same did not yield any result. He therefore prays that appropriate directions be issued for regularization of the petitioner's deceased husband with effect from the date of his confirmation in service and that his pensionary benefits be computed accordingly and be made over to the petitioner.

Ms. S.G. Momin, learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-4 submits that though, the deceased employee (L) Homber Hynniewta has subscribed the GPF and has also been paid the Leave Encashment, the fact that he was temporarily appointed as Driver in the office of the Directorate of Agriculture, Meghalaya, Shillong and not regularized in the post cannot be overlooked. She further submits that for an employee to be put into regular service, the same should have been through a regular recruitment process, which has not been done so in the case of the deceased employee. As such, she submits that it was in this context that the impugned order was issued, wherein it has been also clearly stated that even if regularization is done prospectively, it would be of no benefit to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the same is a contributory fund. She lastly submits that on the facts of the case, the same has no merit and does not warrant any interference from this Court.

Mr. R. Debnath, learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 submits that the respondent No. 5, though being a competent authority to issue authorization for pensionary benefits in respect of the retired and expired employees of the State Government of Meghalaya, the authorization is only on the strength of duly sanctioned pension orders and with complete documents, which should be received by the office from the sanctioned authority as per the relevant provisions of Pension rules of the Government of Meghalaya. He further submits that the documents as received with regard to the deceased employee not being complete, the same was returned to the concerned Department with a request to furnish the same with the particulars as required. He lastly submits that the pension papers not being in order, the respondent No.5 is not in a position to issue regularization and in fact the entire process is for the respondent No. 1-4 to determine.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, considered the submissions and examine the materials on record.

Admittedly, the deceased employee had joined service on 14th March, 1988 and was put on regular scale of pay, wherein he continued to work uninterruptedly against a regular sanctioned post, and pursuant to the order dated 22nd May, 2002 was confirmed in the service with effect from 04.08.1995. It is also noticed that the deceased employee along with others was placed in the seniority lists, which indicated for all practical purposes that the deceased employee was in regular employ, more so, in view of the confirmation. The deceased employee it appears was treated as regular appointee to the post, but however, due to the inaction of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, formal regularization which would have made the services of the deceased employee complete in all respects was still yet to be done. In this regard, this Court notes with surprise at the service history of the deceased employee, inasmuch as, confirmation is usually granted only when an employee has been in regular service for a certain period of time. The inaction of the respondent No. 3 and 4, in this regard has resulted in the denial of due service and retirement benefits which the deceased employee should have enjoyed.

The letters annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 1-4 especially at Annexure-3 and 4 which are the letters dated 10th July, 2017 and 4th May, 2018, reflect that the parent Department i.e. respondent No. 3 and 4, of the deceased employee had moved and requested for regularization of the service of the deceased employee and also for review of the case so as to facilitate the grant of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. However, by the letter dated 11.07.2018, the proposal as put up by the parent department was not agreed to. It is undisputed that the petitioner has rendered twenty-eight long years of service in the employ of the respondent No. 3 and 4 and also had been confirmed, notwithstanding the fact, that there was no formal order for regularization. It is also not disputed that the deceased employee was placed in the regular scale of pay and also on his retirement was paid the Leave Encashment and GPF dues. As noted earlier, the only component that is lacking is a formal order of regularization which has deprived the deceased employee and his family of due benefits.

In consideration of the circumstances of the case and the fact that no laches can be attributed to the deceased employee, it is directed that the respondent shall forthwith consider the case of the deceased employee (L) Homber Hynniewta for retrospective regularization with effect from the date he was confirmed in service i.e. 04.08.1995, and further to take consequential action thereto, in furtherance to the decision to be arrived upon. The entire exercise shall be completed within 4(four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this case shall not serve as a precedent for other employees who are similarly situated as this order has been rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case itself.

With the following directions, the writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.