DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER (HIGHER AND TECHICAL EDUCATION) GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 777 · Decided: 31-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VINEET SARAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
777
   [2022] 14 S.C.R. 777
777
DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER (HIGHER AND TECHICAL EDUCATION)
GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2681 of 2022)
MARCH 31, 2022
[VINEET SARAN AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Service Law – Pension – Manipur Services (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2010 - Benefit of Revised Pension Scheme - Binding force of
Office Memorandum - Over Statutory Order - The appellants are
retired Assistant Professors and a College Librarian - Manipur
Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 were framed on 05.05.2010 -
Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2010, issued by the Governor
provides that the pension benefits shall be paid from 01.04.2010 -
On 24.12.2011 the State Government issued a further Office
Memorandum which provides that the benefit of increased Pension/
Family Pension on account of revision shall be paid from 01.11.2010
- The appellants invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court,
staking their claim for revised pension with effect from 01.04.2010
- Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held 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 5.05.2010, cannot be taken
away - Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the State and set
aside the judgment passed by the Single Judge - On appeal, held:
The O.M of 24.12.2011 is in the nature of an administrative order
and it has not been made and executed in the name of the Governor
- In terms of Clause 3.1 of the O.M. of 05.05.2010, the appellants
have acquired a vested right to get revised pension from a date
which is applicable to the retired State Government employees - The
O.M of 24.12.2011 though projected as an instrument to clarify a
subsisting anomaly to an O.M having statutory strength, in reality
encroaches upon acquired or vested right of the retirees to get such
benefit from 01.04.2010 - Such “clarificatory order” cannot be
permitted to override an Order having statutory strength - The O.M
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
of 24.12.2011 would not have any binding effect so far as entitlement
of the appellants to receive revised pension from 01.04.2010 is
concerned.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Office Memorandum of 24th 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 appellants cemented under Government
Order made on 12th August 2011, read in continuation with the
Orders of 5th May 2010 and 3rd 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 the O.M. of 5th May
2010, the appellants have acquired a vested right to get revised
pension from a date which is applicable to the retired State
Government employees. The appellants have been placed in the
said pension regime, and this has been recognised by Clause 7
of the Order of 12th August 2011. [Para 15][788-C-D]
2. The Court is unable to agree with the main reasoning of
the Division Bench that by giving the appellants the benefit of
revised pension with effect from 1st April 2010 an anomalous
situation would arise as serving staff(s) of higher educational
institutions could be getting the benefit of such revision from 1st
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, 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
Office Memorandum of 24th 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
from 1st April 2010. Such “clarificatory order” cannot be permitted
to override an Order having statutory strength. The Court
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
779
accordingly hold that the appellants shall be entitled to receive
revised pension with effect from 1st April 2010, considering the
provisions of Clause 7 of the Ord
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.