BRIGITA WAHLANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's husband (L) Homber Hynniewta was temporarily appointed as Driver in the office of the Directorate of Agriculture, Shillong on 14th March, 1988 in the scale of pay of Rs. 350-10-400-EB-11-510-EB-13-575/- p.m. plus usual allowances as admissible under rules, issued by the Directorate of Agriculture, Shillong. Thereafter, his service was confirmed vide confirmation order dated 22nd May, 2002 with effect from 04.08.1995, after which the name of the deceased employee was also placed in the seniority lists along with other employees. Subsequently, vide order dated 06.08.2002, the services of the deceased employee were temporarily transferred/allotted from the Agriculture Department to the Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department and vide order dated 19.08.2005, his services were placed under the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Meghalaya, Shillong. The deceased employee continued his service in the said Department till his retirement on 13.11.2016 and before his pension papers or pensionary benefits could be finalized, the deceased employee expired on 08.12.2016. The petitioner being the wife of the deceased employee then approached the authorities for release of the pensionary benefits as permissible and also for grant of family pension, but received only the amount for Leave Encashment and General Provident Fund, which had been subscribed to by her deceased husband. Being aggrieved thereby on denial of pensionary benefits inspite of long years of service, the petitioner is before this Court for appropriate directions to release the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee.

(2.) Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that ever since the deceased employee entered in service he was put on a regular scale of pay placed in seniority lists and was also confirmed in service. He submits that the stand taken by the respondents is that, the services of the deceased employee not being regularized had rendered the said employee ineligible to be allowed the pension as prayed, and that further even if the service were to be regularized it would be prospective, which would place the deceased employee under the new pension scheme which was contributory and therefore of no use to the petitioner. The learned counsel has drawn this Court's attention to the impugned letter dated 11.07.2018, wherein the said information is contained and submits that the same is unwarranted and misplaced, inasmuch as, the deceased employee had rendered service of over twenty-eight years and as such, is entitled to all service benefits. He also submits that the Department has also pursued the office of the Respondent No. 2 for regularization of the deceased employee's service, but the same did not yield any result. He therefore prays that appropriate directions be issued for regularization of the petitioner's deceased husband with effect from the date of his confirmation in service and that his pensionary benefits be computed accordingly and be made over to the petitioner.

(3.) Ms. S.G. Momin, learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-4 submits that though, the deceased employee (L) Homber Hynniewta has subscribed the GPF and has also been paid the Leave Encashment, the fact that he was temporarily appointed as Driver in the office of the Directorate of Agriculture, Meghalaya, Shillong and not regularized in the post cannot be overlooked. She further submits that for an employee to be put into regular service, the same should have been through a regular recruitment process, which has not been done so in the case of the deceased employee. As such, she submits that it was in this context that the impugned order was issued, wherein it has been also clearly stated that even if regularization is done prospectively, it would be of no benefit to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the same is a contributory fund. She lastly submits that on the facts of the case, the same has no merit and does not warrant any interference from this Court.