Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Opposing the aforesaid submission, Mr. R.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 – Housing Board and its officers arrayed as respondents No. 2 to 5 and Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent No.6 – State of Madhya Pradesh supported the impugned judgment and asserted that the appellant’s husband had not been regularized till the date of his demise and had remained a work charged employee. Alluding to the very same office order dated 28th October, 1997, relied on by learned counsel for the appellant, it was sought to be clarified that by virtue of the said order, Late Munna Lal Burman and other similarly placed daily wage Muster Roll employees working in the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board for the period between 26 th May, 1974 and 30th June, 1981, had been appointed in the work charged establishment and in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment, M.P Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Service Rules was made applicable to such employees. Explaining that the work charged establishment where the deceased was appointed, was a non- pensionable establishment of the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board and he could have opted for the National Pension Scheme 3 in terms of the order dated 02 nd July, 2015 which he didn’t, it was stated that the appellant is not entitled to receive family pension 2 (2019)10 SCC 516 3 For short ‘NPS’ and the judgment in the case of Prem Singh (supra) had no application to the facts of the instant case.

10. It is clear from the above that the Madhya Pradesh (Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 had not been adopted by the respondent No. 1 – 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.

The M.P. Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 was also not made applicable to the work charged employees of the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board either in terms of the M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal Regulations, 1998 or under the Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board (Conduct of Business and Delegation of Powers) Regulation, 2015. Observing that the M.P. Daily Wage Employee (Condition of Rule), Rule 2013 had been adopted for the daily wage employees of the Housing Board thereby bringing them within the fold of the NPS, a decision was taken to extend the very same Scheme to work charged employees as well.

11. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision taken by the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board, an order dated 02 nd July, 2015 was issued to regulate the services of the work charged employees by adopting the relevant rules of the State Government as mentioned above and bringing them within the purview of the NPS managed by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority 5. Para 8 of the order dated 2nd July, 2015 is relevant and reproduced herein below for ready reference:

12. In the course of arguments advanced before us on 19 th September, 2020, we had specifically enquired from learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the 5 For short ‘PFDRA’ aforesaid Office Order was brought to the notice of the employees of the work charged establishments of the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board to enable them to exercise their option of becoming members of the NPS and whether the said employees including the deceased husband of the appellant had applied for availing of the benefit under the NPS. In response thereto, an affidavit dated 15 th 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 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 02 nd 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.