State of Manipur and Anr. vs Tulla Bibi

This appeal is directed against the order of Single Bench of this court passed in WP(C) No. 813 of 2002 on 15.7.2002 whereby the writ petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the present respondent, was held to be entitled to receive payment for leave encashment benefits of her husband, who died while serving as a workcharged employee in the Electricity Department, Govt. of Manipur, and direction was given to the present appellants, who were the respondents in the said case, to verify the service record of the present respondent''s husband and arrange for payment of amount against the unutilized earned leave found available in the credit of the husband of the present respondent on the date of his death.

We have heard Mr.R.S.Reisang, learned Addl.Govt .Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr.N.Biren, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the present respondent.

There is no dispute that the present respondent''s husband, namely, Md.Saleiman Mia, died on 30.8.1996 while he was serving as workcharged employee in the Electricity Department, Govt. of Manipur. However, according to the learned counsel of the appellants, the impugned order is liable to be quashed inasmuch as the learned Single Judge failed to consider the provisions of the existing Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 and no cash encashment equivalent of unutilized earned leave of the deceased workcharged employee was payable as per Government Office Memorandum dated 18.8.1993 at AnnexureR/2 and the notification dated 23.9.2000 at AnnexureR/3.

On perusal of the impugned order, it is ascertained that the learned Single Judge''s decision about entitlement of leave encashment benefit of her deceased husband by the present respondent was based on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed on 03.6.1999 disposing of the Writ Appeal No. 106/1997 and the a bunch of other writ appeals. The said judgment of Division Bench of this court is found to have been passed after due consideration of the relevant Terminal Benefits for workcharged staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI/Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978. The relevant portions of the said Rules are quoted in the impugned order. We cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel of the appellants to the effect that the impugned order was passed without considering the existing Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978. In respect of the submissions of the learned counsel of the appellants about nonliability of the appellants for payment of cash equivalent of unutilized earned leave of the deceased workcharged employee as per the Government office memorandum dated 18.8.93 and the notification dated 23.9.2000, we have perused the annexure R/2 and R/3 and we are of the view that they will not affect the right of the present respondent to get cash equivalent of unutilized earned leave of her deceased husband under the provisions of the said Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978. The said office memorandum dated 18.8.93 (AnnexureR/2) cannot have the effect of modification or alteration of the provisions of the said Terminal Benefits Rules and also of overriding the effect of interpretation made by the Division Bench of this court regarding the said provisions of the Rules. The said notification dated 23.9.2000 (AnnexureR/3) was issued in the name of the Governor of the State by way of amendment of the said Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978. By that amendment, the then existing Rule 6 of the said Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 was substituted by the provisions mentioned in the said notification. The said amendment came into force from the date of notification in the official gazette and was made applicable to workcharged employees retired after the said date. Since the present respondent had already acquired the right to get the cash equivalent of unutilized earned leave of her deceased husband under the provisions of the then existing Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978, consequent upon the death of her husband on 30.8.1996, the subsequent amendment by the said notification, which came into force after 23.9.2000, will be of no consequence so far as the said acquired right of the respondent is concerned. In the result, in our considered opinion, the impugned order of the learned Single Bench is not liable to be quashed or set aside on any of the grounds submitted by the appellants'' counsel. This appeal has no merit and as such, it is hereby dismissed. The impugned order of the Single Bench is not interfered with. No order as to costs.