Wife of work charged employee of the Housing Board is not entitled to pension - Supreme Court.

Chemmalar

14 Oct 2022

The bench consisting of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hima Kohli upheld the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 23rd January, 2020 holding that the wife of work charged employee member of the work charged establishment, was not entitled to pension as he could not be treated at par with the regular employees of Housing Board.

Brief Facts

on 28th April, 1977, Munna Lal Burman, husband of the appellant was engaged by the Housing Board (respondent) as a Muster Roll employee on daily wages. On 29th October, 1997, he was appointed in the work charged establishment of the Housing Board. During his service, Munna Lal Burman died on 26th April 2016. The same year, the appellant submitted applications to the Housing Board seeking family pension which were turned down vide letter dated 14th October, 2016 on the ground that there was no provision for grant of pension/family pension to employees working in the work charged establishment.

Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant filed a writ before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, for grant of family pension, retiral dues, gratuity etc., on the demise of her husband. The said petition was allowed and has directed the housing board to fix the retiral dues and family pension and release the arrears of family pension with interest.

Aggrieved by the decision, Housing Board preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Division Bench, vide judgment dated 23rd January, 2020 and it was held that the deceased husband of the appellant being a member of the work charged establishment, was not entitled to pension as he could not be treated at par with the regular employees Housing Board.

Question posed for the consideration of Supreme Court

1. whether the deceased husband of the appellant was a regular employee of the Housing Board?

2. Whether wife of deceased work charged employee of the Housing Board, is entitled to family pension?

3. Whether the principles of law laid down in Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others has application to the facts of the instant case?

Judgment

Housing board being a statutory and an autonomous body, forms its own rules and policies that govern the service conditions of its employees. Thus, the rules laid down by the State Government are not automatically applicable to the employees of the Housing Board unless specifically adopted by the Board. The Madhya Pradesh (Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 had not been adopted by the Housing Board and the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 did not cover the workers working in work charged establishments of the Housing Board.

In this respect, 02nd July, 2015, Housing Board issued an order to regulate the services of the work charged employees by adopting the relevant rules of the State Government bringing them within the fold of the National Pension Scheme (NPS) managed by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority. However, as per the records, during his life time, the appellant’s husband did not opt for the said Scheme.

Thus, the court held that the “deceased husband of the appellant was not a regular employee of the Housing Board. Even while serving as work charge employee, he has not opted for pension under NPS. With regard to the applicability of principles of law laid down in Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the court opined that “the fact situation in the case in hand is entirely different”. The appellant is therefore, not entitled to receive family pension from the Housing Board.

The court has referred to and considered Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab (1988 SCC OnLine P&H 338) in this regard.

Case Title: Sunita Burman Versus The Commissioner, M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board and Others