SUNITA BURMAN versus THE COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 14-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
973
SUNITA BURMAN
v.
THE COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 7068 of 2022)
OCTOBER 14, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Family Pension – Retiral Dues – Entitlement to – Division
Bench of High Court in Writ Appeal reversed order passed by Single
Judge in Writ Petition whereunder Respondent No.1-Housing Board
was directed to pay family pension and other retiral dues to her on
demise of her husband – Issue as to whether deceased husband of
appellant was a regular employee of respondent No.1-Housing
Board and if not, would appellant still be entitled to receive family
pension if the deceased had remained a work charged employee in
the establishment of respondent No.1- Housing Board till the date
of his demise – Held: The deceased husband of appellant was not a
regular employee of respondent No.1-Housing Board – He had
remained a work charged employee in the establishment of Housing
Board till the date of his demise – Being cognizant of the vacuum
relating to service conditions of the employees working in its work
charged establishments, respondent No.1-Housing Board had to
extend the benefit of pension to the said employees by bringing
them within purview of the National Pension Scheme (NPS) and
they were given an option to become a member of the said Scheme
so as to avail the benefit of pension – As her deceased husband
had elected not to opt for the said Scheme, the appellant cannot
claim entitlement to payment of family pension on his demise from
respondent No.1-Housing Board – Madhya Pradesh Work Charged
and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Service Rules,
1975 –Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Gratuity
Benefit Rules, 1962 – Madhya Pradesh Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977.
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 973
973
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. An affidavit dated 15th September, 2022 has
been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1-Housing Board stating
inter alia that the contents of the order dated 2nd July, 2015,
providing for an option under the National Pension Scheme (NPS)
to the work charged employees of the Housing Board was duly
brought to the notice of all concerned, in accordance with the
directions issued at serial No.12 of the endorsement at the foot
of the said order that required the same to be displayed on the
notice board. The affidavit further states that in response to the
aforesaid order calling for requisite options from all the work
charged employees of the Housing Board, out of 48 such
employees, only 16 had opted to avail the benefit of NPS. Clause
8 of the said order clearly provides that if an employee wants to
opt for pension, he can do so by giving his option and thereafter,
10% of his payable salary will be deducted on a monthly basis
from his account and the respondent No.1-Housing Board will
match the said amount by contributing its share on a monthly
basis. Thus, the only option that was made available to the work
charged employees of the respondent No.1-Housing Board was
to exercise the option mentioned in para 8 of the order dated
02nd July, 2015, namely, the NPS. However, as per the records,
during his life time, the appellant’s husband did not opt for the
said Scheme. [Para 12][982-E-H]
2.1. The deceased husband of the appellant had remained
a work charged employee till the date of his demise on 26th April,
2016. His services had not been regularized. The Office Order
dated 29th October, 1997 relied on by the appellant to urge that
the services of the deceased husband of the appellant had been
regularized, is being misread as can be discerned from the first
para of the said order which states that daily wages Muster Roll
employees working between 26th May, 1974 to 30th June, 1981
and named therein were being appointed in work charged
establishments and further, that the M.P. Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Service Rules,
1977 was made applicable to them. However, the aforesaid rules
were never adopted by the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board
or extended to its work charged employees. Being cognizant of
the vacuum relating to the service conditions of the employees
working in its work charged establishments, the Board of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
975
Directors of respondent No.1-Housing Board had deliberated
over the matter and decided on 6th April, 2015 to extend the
bene

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.