DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (HIGHER AND TECHINICAL EDUCATION) GOVERNMENT OF

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2681 OF 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17253 of 2017) DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D)  BY LRS. & ORS.                ....APPELLANT(S)          VERSUS THE STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED  BY THE COMMISSIONER (HIGHER  AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION)  GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR & ANR.                ....RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T   Leave granted. 2. The appellants before us are eight retired Assistant Professors and   a   College   Librarian,   also   superannuated,   from   the   State   of th Manipur.     All   of  them  had   superannuated  between   28   February st 2006  and 31   July 2008. Subsequent to filing of  the Petition  for Special Leave to Appeal, eleven teaching staffs from different colleges in the same State have taken out an application for impleadment as petitioners.  They are allowed to intervene in this appeal.  Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.04.01 18:02:37 IST Reason: Decision was taken by the Government of India to revise the pay 3. scales of teachers and equivalent cadres in the central universities 1 and   this   was   communicated   by   the   Government   of   India   to   the st University Grants Commission by a letter of 31  December 2008. The th revised scales as per 6  Pay Commission recommendation were to be implemented   by   the   State   Governments   as   well.     In   the   State   of Manipur, Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 were framed in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the th Constitution of India on 5  May 2010. Such Rules were to cover those appointed to Civil Services and posts in connection with the affairs of that   State   and   which   were   under   the   rule   making   control   of   the Government of Manipur. Following the introduction of the Revised Pay Rules, certain modifications were made in the Rules guiding pension and allied benefits of those covered by the civil services rules in that State.   These   modifications   were   made   by   an   Office   Memorandum th th dated 5  May 2010 bearing no.9/3/2010­FD (PIC) (“O.M. of 5  May 2010” in short) introduced by the Governor of Manipur. Though the source of power for making such modifications was not spelt out in the   said   memorandum,   this   was   made   in   pursuance   of   the Government’s   decision   and   fits   the   characteristic   of   a   Rule   made under proviso to Article 309 or an executive order made in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India.  th 4. Clause 3.1 of the O.M. of 5  May 2010 stipulated:­ 2 “ 3.1.  Save as otherwise mentioned in these orders, the revised provisions  as  per   these orders  shall  apply  to  Government servants who retire/die in harness on or after 01/01/2006, notionally with effect from 01/01/2006 or from the data of retirement whichever is later, as the case may he, with cash payment/actual benefit from 01/04/2010. Separate orders   have   been   issued   in­respect   of   employees   who retired/died before 01/01/2006.” (quoted verbatim from paperbook) rd 5. On 3  June 2011 by way of an order issued in terms of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, certain revisions of the scales of pay of different categories of posts in Government Colleges under the Department of Higher Education and Technical Education in the State of Manipur were mandated.  This Order was st to come into force with effect from 1   June 2006 and arrears for st th the period from 1   November 2010 to 30   June 2011 were to be deposited   in   the   respective   G.P.F.   accounts   of   the   employees. Clause 6 of this Order stipulated:­ “6. Rules relating to pension, family pension, gratuity and encashment of leave, ex­gratia compensation, provident fund, etc.   Shall   be   as   applicable   to   other   State   Government employees.”  (quoted verbatim from paperbook) th 6. On 12  August 2011, another Order [bearing no.7(7)/32009­ rd HE(Misc.)Pt.(1)] was issued superseding the Order of 3  June 2011 in relation to different categories of college teachers (and equivalent grades) specifying the revised scale of pay. Clauses 3, 7 and 8 of th this Order of 12  August 2011 read:­ 3 “ 3.   These orders shall come into force nationally with effect from  01/01/2006 with monetary benefit from 01/11/2010 and actual case payment from 01/07/2011. The arrears for the   period   from   01/11/2010   to   30/06/2011   shall   be deposited   into   their   respective   G.P.F   Accounts   of   the employees. However, for those employees who subscribe contribution under   the   New  Pension  Scheme  and   retired/  expired.  The arrears for the period from 01/11/2010. To 30/06/2011 shall be released in 2(two) equal instalments, first on 01/01/2012, and second on 01/07/2012.  ……. 7. Rules   relating   to   pension,   family   pension,   gratuity   and encashment   of   Leave   salary/Leave   of   any   kind,   Ex­gratia Compensation, Provident Fund and New Pension Scheme no­ win force etc. shall be as applicable to other state Government employees. 8. For   those   College   Teachers/Equivalent   Grads   who retired/superannuated between 01­01­2006 and             31­ 10­2010, Pension shall be calculated on the basis of notional pay and AGP in the revised pay.”  (quoted verbatim from the paperbook) th 7. On   24   December   2011   the   State   Government   issued   a further Office Memorandum contemplating certain clarifications to th the  department’s   Order   dated   12   August  2011.     The   areas  of doubt and the clarifications given thereto, to the extent these are relevant for adjudication of this appeal, as specified in the said th Office Memorandum of 24  December 2011 were:­

4

(Emphasis added) 5 8. The   dispute   involved   in   this   appeal   is   as   to   whether   the appellants, as retired staffs from different colleges, are to get the benefits   of   revised   pension   from   the   date   given   in   the   Office th st Memorandum of 24   December 2011 or from 1   April 2010, the latter date being made applicable to those retired from various state services.   The   State   Government   wanted   to   implement   revised st pension from 1  November 2010. The appellants invoked the writ jurisdiction   of   the   Manipur   High   Court,   staking   their   claim   for st revised pension with effect from 1   April 2010. The Single Judge th allowed the writ petition by a judgment delivered on 30   October 2015. It was, inter­alia, opined in that judgment:­ “ 12.  Accordingly, this Court is of the view that by the Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011, as far as the claim of the petitioners for grant of cash payment/actual benefits w.e.f. 1.4.2010 as provided under the Office Memorandum dated 5.5.2010,   cannot   be   taken   away   and   to   that   extent   the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 cannot be enforced against the petitioners. This Court has also noted that the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 is merely in the nature of clarification without modifying the orders dated 3.6.2011 and 12.8.2011 and also an executive order   which   cannot   prevail   upon   the   Office   Memorandum dated 5.5.2010 which has statutory force which governs the retiral benefits and they form  a part  of the Manipur  Civil Services   (Pension)   Rules,   1977,   Commutation   of   Pension under the Manipur Civil Services  (Commutation of Pension) Rules,   2010   and   the   Manipur   Services   (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1995. 13.  Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the present writ   petition   is   allowed.   The   petitioners   will  be   entitled   to enjoy the actual benefit of the cash payment/actual payment as regards the pensioary benefits w.e.f. 1.4.2010 and other 6 benefits   as   mentioned   in   the   Office   Memorandum   dated 5.5.2010   and   they   shall   be   also   entitled   to   any   other extension of benefits including arrears in terms of the order dated  20.9.2011  or   any   subsequent   orders  that   may  have been passed. The petitioners who have rendered a long valuable service in the field of education have volunteered to donate a sum of Rs.1000/­ each from their entitlements for the benefit of the children   of   the   Children   Home   managed   by   the   State Government,   for   which   gesture,   this   Court   records   its appreciation. The amount so donated by the petitioners will be deposited in the account of the Children Home, Takyelpat, managed   by   the   State   Government   to   be   utilised   for   the immediate and personal needs of the resident children of the Home.” (quoted verbatim from the paperbook) 9. The State Government were successful in their appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, in the th judgment under appeal, decided on 27  January 2017, held:­  “[11]  It be stated that pursuant to recommendation made by  University grants commission and also upon resolution being taken by Ministry of Human Resources, Govt. of India relating to revision of pay, the Government of Manipur came with   the   revision   of   pay   of   the   college   teachers   vide notification   dated   12.8.2011.   The   said   order   relating   to revision of pay scale as per clause 3 of the said notification notionally   came   into   effect   from   1.1.2006   with   monetary benefit   from   1.11.2010   and   actual   cash   payment   from 1.7.2011.   The   arrears   for   the   period   from   1.11.2010   to 30.6.2011 was stipulated to be deposited in the GPF Accounts whereas OM dated 5.5.10 was issued in the wake of revision of provisions relating to regulation of pension etc. on account of introduction of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2010. The clause 3.1 does stipulate that provision of it would come into effect from 1.1.2006 and monetary benefit was to be paid from 1.4.2010. Thus, it is evident that consequent upon revision of salary by virtue   of   Manipur   Services   (Revised   Pay)   Rules,2010 applicable   only   in   case   of   State   Govt.   employees   the   said Office Memorandum dated 5.5.10 dealing with the provision regulating   revised   pension   was   required   to   be   issued necessarily stipulating therein about monetary benefit being 7 paid from 1.4.2010. The provision relating to enforceability of the Office Memorandum and payment of monetary benefit on account of revision of pay was confined to the Government employees who were being governed by the Manipur Services (Revised   Pay)Rules,   2010   whereas   the   notification   dated 12.8.2011   relating   to   revised   scale   of   pay   of   the   college teachers was issued by the State Govt. upon acceptance of the   recommendation   of   the   UGC   and   Govt.   of   India   and therefore the University teachers would be governed by the stipulation made in that notification which speaks about the monetary benefits being given to them w.e.f. 1.11.2010. The said stipulation has nothing to do with the matter relating to pension for the reason that monetary benefit which was to be given from 1.11.2010 may be related to persons in service and even the persons who got retired. However, if the proposition laid down by the learned single Judge is accepted, a situation which would be quite anomalous would come up whereby the teachers who are in service would be entitled to monetary benefit only w.e.f. 1.11.2010 whereas the retired employees would   be   getting   monetary   benefit   from   1.4.2010.   It   be reiterated that dispute is with respect to the date from which teachers of the Universities/colleges will be entitled to have monetary benefits, which dispute never pertains to any rules relating to the pension and thereby there happens to be no applicability of any of the provisions of the OM dated 5.5.2010 whereby provision relating to pension was revised. [12] Under the circumstances, the learned single Judge by resorting to the provisions under the Office Memorandum dt.   5.5.2010   wrongly   held   that   the   petitioners   would   be entitled to monetary benefit w.e.f. 1.4.2010 and thereby order dated 30.10.2015 is hereby set aside. Consequently, it is held that   the   petitioners   are   entitled   to   have   monetary   benefit w.e.f. 01.11.2010 and not w.e.f. 1.4.2010. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.” Mr.   Ngangom   Junior,   learned   Advocate   appearing   for   the 10. appellants, has argued that his clients had migrated to the pension regime created for the State Government employees, which was guided by an Order issued by the Governor in pursuance of the decision of the State Government. As we have already discussed earlier in the judgment, power to issue such Order can be traced to 8 both Article 166 as also proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is not of much significance under which Article the Rules or Order was issued as in either case, the legal instrument would be   endowed   with   statutory   strength.   We   have   already   quoted Clause 3.1 of the amended Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977 in the earlier part of this judgment. It is not in dispute that st the appellants had retired after 1  June 2006.  The main argument of the appellants has been that since their pension entitlement was covered   by   a   Rule   made   under   proviso   to   Article   309   of   the th Constitution of India, the Office Memorandum dated 24  December 2011   could   not   alter   the   benefits   that   the   appellants   became entitled to under the aforesaid statutory instrument.  The stand of the State Government, represented by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior   Advocate,   is   that   the   revision   of   pay   scales   covers superannuated   persons   from   different   services   under   the   State Government   including   those   within   the   education   department itself. His contention is that even after the appellants migrated to the 2010 Rules, they could not claim benefit different from, and more than that the serving staffs of the department from which they  originated   was   enjoying.   It  has   been   pointed   out   that   the th rd Order of 12  August 2011 superseded the Order of 3  June 2011 9 revising pay of college teachers and we have already reproduced Clause 8 of this Order.  11. It has been emphasised on behalf of the State of Manipur that th the Order of 12  August 2011 is not under challenge.  It has also been argued on behalf of the State that the appellants who were employed in the Technical and Higher Education Department of the Government of Manipur enjoy pay scales and pensions higher than that of Government employees or those engaged in judicial services in   the   State   of   Manipur.   On   that   count,   it  is   urged   that   their benefits cannot be equated with those of the original employees appointed under the Manipur State Government Service Rules. The judgment under appeal is also sought to be defended on the ground that   members   from   different   services   under   the   Government   of Manipur were receiving revised pay from different dates. It has also th been asserted that the Office Memorandum of 24  December 2011 th is only a clarificatory order and the original Order of 12   August 2011   was   never   assailed   by   the   appellants.     Various   Cabinet decisions as regards implementation of revision of pay orders were brought   to   our   notice   but   we   need   not   go   into   these   Cabinet decisions  in detail.    In  this  appeal, we  are  concerned  with the th legality of the content of the Office Memorandum of 24  December 10 2011 to the extent that the same shifts the date of getting actual st benefit of pension/ family pension on account of revision from 1 st April 2010 to 1  November 2010.  th 12. The Order of 12  August 2011 has been issued in the name of the Governor of the State of Manipur. On the rationale we have explained earlier, it can qualify for being an executive order in the terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India as also a Rule made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. But th this Order of 12   August 2011 does not lay down any specific stipulation   for   the   retired   college   teachers   or   those   holding equivalent grades barring clauses 7 and 8 thereof, to which we have referred to earlier in this judgment.  These clauses also do not specify the date from which revised pension is to be payable to the retirees.  Clause 8 specifies the manner of computation of pension st for those who superannuated or retired between 1  January 2006 st and 31  October 2010. Clause 7 on the other hand relates to the pension   Rules   to   be   applicable   as   in   the   cases   of   other   State Government employees.   Therefore, so far as the appellants are concerned, their migration into the regime of the 2010 Rules meant for State Government employees and their entitlement to revised pension from a date applicable to the State Government employees 11 th has not been excluded by the Order of 12  August 2011 made by the Governor of Manipur, either expressly or by implication. 13. So far as the State Government’s employees are concerned, the   revisions   of   provisions   regulating   pension   and   ancillary th conditions   were   guided   by   O.M.   of   5   May   2010.   The   subject covered   by   this   memorandum   would   appear   from   the   following clauses thereof:­ “No.9/3/2010­FD(PIC) : The undersigned is directed to say that   in   pursuance   of   Government’s   decision   following   the introduction   of   the   Manipur   Services   (Revised­Pay)   Rules, 2010, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to introduce the following   modifications   in   the   rules   regulating   Pension, Retirement / Death / Service Gratuity / Family pension / Disability Pension under the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules,   1977   (hereafter   referred   to   as   Pension   Rules), Commutation of Pension under  the Manipur Civil Services (Commutation   of   Pension)   Rules,   2010   and   the   Manipur Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1995. 2. These   orders   apply   to   State   Government   Employees governed   by   the   Manipur   Civil   Services   (Pension)   Rules, 1977.” (quoted verbatim from paperbook) th 14. No distinction is made in Clause 3.1 of the O.M. of 5   May 2010   between   different   categories   of   employees,   on   which distinction  Mr.  Hegde   has  emphasised  in his   arguments.  Thus, once  the   appellants   migrate   into   the   Rules   guiding   other   State Government   employees,   the   appellants’   service   origins   become insignificant   so   far   as   application   of   substantive   part   of   the aforesaid   revision   of   Pension   Rules   is   concerned.   As   we   have 12 th already discussed, Clause 8 of the Order dated 12   August 2011 also   does   not   contemplate   special   treatment   for   superannuated staff of higher educational institutions in the State of Manipur to correlate them with the existing staff of their original service for the purpose of date of implementation of the revised pension. Thus, the quantum of pension the appellants would receive vis­à­vis retirees from other services in the State of Manipur would not have impact on the point of law we are examining in this appeal. We are testing th in this appeal if the Order passed on 24   December 2011 could st postpone the date of entitlement of revised pension to 1  November 2010 for the appellants.  th 15. The   Office   Memorandum   of   24   December   2011   is   in   the nature of an administrative order.   This Office Memorandum has not been made and executed in the name of the Governor. But this Office Memorandum seeks to take away substantive right of the th appellants   cemented   under   Government   Order   made   on   12 th August 2011, read in continuation with the Orders of 5  May 2010 rd and 3  June 2011. In our opinion, the course of action sought to be adopted by the State is impermissible. In terms of Clause 3.1 of th the O.M. of 5   May 2010, the appellants have acquired a vested right to get revised pension from a date which is applicable to the 13 retired   State   Government   employees.   The   appellants   have   been placed in the said pension regime, and this has been recognised by th Clause 7 of the Order of 12  August 2011.  16. We   are   unable   to   agree   with   the   main   reasoning   of   the Division Bench that by giving the appellants the benefit of revised st pension with effect from 1   April 2010 an anomalous situation would arise as serving staff(s) of higher educational institutions st could be getting the benefit of such revision from 1   November 2010.  The State has made conscious decision to delink the retirees from   the   service   conditions   guiding   the   serving   staffs   of   the concerned   institutions   and  placed  them  in  the   retirement  rules meant for those in the Manipur State Service. In such a situation, we do not think the anomaly pointed out in the judgment under appeal could be the guiding factor for fixing the date of entitlement to   revised   pension   benefits   specified   by   the   Service   Rules.   The th Office Memorandum of 24  December 2011 though projected as an instrument   to   clarify   a   subsisting   anomaly   to   an   Office Memorandum   having   statutory   strength,   in   reality   encroaches upon acquired or vested right of the retirees to get such benefit st from 1  April 2010. Such “clarificatory order” cannot be permitted to override an Order having statutory strength. We accordingly hold 14 that the appellants shall be entitled to receive revised pension with st effect from 1  April 2010, considering the provisions of Clause 7 of th th the Order of 12   August 2011. The Office Memorandum of 24 December   2011   would   not   have   any   binding   effect   so   far   as st entitlement of the appellants to receive revised pension from 1 April 2010 is concerned. Under the circumstances, the judgment under appeal is set 17. aside. We  restore  and  affirm  the  judgment  of  the  Single  Judge th dated 30  October 2015.   18. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 19.   Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. ……………………………….J. (VINEET SARAN) ……………………………….J. (ANIRUDDHA BOSE) New Delhi; March 31, 2022 15