Supreme Court Denies Pension to Widow of Work-Charged Employee: Sunita Burman vs. MP Housing Board (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 14 October 2022

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7068 of 2022

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Hima Kohli, J.

Can a widow claim family pension if her husband, a work-charged employee, was not regularized and did not opt for the available pension scheme? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the pension rights of work-charged employees. This case revolves around whether the appellant, the widow of a work-charged employee, is entitled to family pension from the Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board. The bench comprised Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, with the judgment authored by Justice Hima Kohli.

Case Background

The appellant, Sunita Burman, is the widow of the late Munna Lal Burman. Munna Lal Burman was initially engaged as a Muster Roll employee on daily wages by the M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board (Housing Board) on April 28, 1977. Subsequently, on October 29, 1997, he was appointed to the work-charged establishment of the Housing Board. Munna Lal Burman continued to work in this capacity until his death on April 26, 2016. Following his demise, the appellant applied for family pension on August 1, 2016, and September 9, 2016. However, the Housing Board rejected her applications on October 14, 2016, stating that there was no provision for granting pension or family pension to employees in the work-charged establishment. This led the appellant to file a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, seeking family pension and other retiral benefits.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on September 6, 2018, directing the Housing Board to fix and release the retiral dues and family pension to the appellant with interest. The Single Judge noted that the M.P. Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Rules were applicable to Munna Lal Burman, and that the M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal Regulations, 1998, and the M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board Regulations, 2015, provided for pension benefits to regular employees as per the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The Single Judge also observed that the National Pension Scheme (NPS) was not applicable to the deceased employee, as he was not appointed on or after January 1, 2005.

Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, the Housing Board filed a writ appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Judge’s decision on January 23, 2020, holding that the deceased, being a work-charged employee, was not entitled to pension and could not be treated on par with regular employees. This led the appellant to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined several key legal provisions and regulations. The M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, specifically exclude persons in a work-charged establishment from its ambit as per Rule 2(ii)(a). The M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal Regulations, 1998, and the Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board (Conduct of Business and Delegation of Powers) Regulation, 2015, also did not provide for pension to work-charged employees. The Court noted that the Housing Board, being a statutory body, has the autonomy to frame its own rules and policies for its employees as per Sections 14, 15 and 17 of the Housing Board Act. The Court also considered the decision of the Housing Board to adopt the Madhya Pradesh Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Service Rules, 1975 (excluding Rules 4 to 8), the Madhya Pradesh Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977, and the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Gratuity Benefit Rules, 1962. The Court observed that the Madhya Pradesh (Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, had not been adopted by the Housing Board.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that her husband was a regular employee of the Housing Board, relying on the office order dated October 29, 1997, which regularized Muster Roll employees based on seniority. The appellant’s husband’s name was listed in the order, indicating his regularization.
• It was submitted that as per Regulation 5(d) of the M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal Regulations, 1998, pension/family pension was payable to such employees/their families.
• The appellant contended that the impugned judgment was contrary to the principles laid down in Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2019) 10 SCC 516].

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellant’s husband was not regularized and remained a work-charged employee until his death. The office order of October 29, 1997, only appointed daily wage Muster Roll employees to the work-charged establishment, making the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Service Rules applicable to them.
• The work-charged establishment was a non-pensionable establishment. The deceased could have opted for the National Pension Scheme (NPS) as per the order dated July 2, 2015, but did not.
• The judgment in Prem Singh (supra) was not applicable to the facts of this case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the deceased husband of the appellant was a regular employee of the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board.
2. If not, whether the appellant would still be entitled to receive family pension if the deceased had remained a work-charged employee in the establishment of the respondent No. 1- Housing Board till the date of his demise.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Court held that the deceased husband of the appellant was not a regular employee of the Housing Board but remained a work-charged employee until his death. The court observed that the Housing Board had adopted the National Pension Scheme (NPS) for work-charged employees, providing them an option for pension benefits. However, the deceased did not opt for this scheme. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to receive family pension. The Court upheld the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, dismissing the appeal.

“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 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.”

“We therefore hold that the deceased husband of the appellant was not a regular employee of the respondent No.1 – Housing Board. He had remained a work charged employee in the establishment of the Housing Board till the date of his demise.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the deceased was a work-charged employee and not a regular employee of the Housing Board. The Court emphasized that the Housing Board had the autonomy to frame its own rules and that the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, did not apply to work-charged employees. The Court also noted that the Housing Board had introduced the National Pension Scheme (NPS) for work-charged employees, providing them an option for pension benefits, which the deceased did not avail. The court’s reasoning was based on the specific rules and regulations applicable to the Housing Board and its employees, highlighting the importance of following the prescribed procedures for availing pension benefits.

Key Takeaways

• Work-charged employees are not automatically entitled to pension benefits under the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
• Statutory bodies like the M.P. Housing Board have the autonomy to frame their own rules and policies for their employees.
• Employees must adhere to the specified procedures and options to avail pension benefits, such as opting for the National Pension Scheme (NPS).
• The judgment highlights the importance of understanding the terms and conditions of employment, particularly regarding pension eligibility.
• This case underscores the distinction between regular employees and work-charged employees in the context of pension benefits.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that work-charged employees of the M.P. Housing Board are not entitled to pension benefits under the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, and must opt for the National Pension Scheme (NPS) if they wish to avail pension benefits. This judgment clarifies the distinction between regular and work-charged employees in the context of pension eligibility within the specific framework of the M.P. Housing Board. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, and thereby did not change the existing position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the appellant, the widow of a work-charged employee, was not entitled to family pension. The Court emphasized that the deceased was not a regular employee, and the relevant pension rules did not apply to work-charged employees. The Court also noted that the deceased had the option to join the National Pension Scheme but did not, thus making his family ineligible for pension benefits.