Summary
The appellant's husband joined the M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board in 1977 as a daily-wage muster-roll worker, was later moved to its work-charged establishment, and died in service in 2016. The Board refused family pension; a Single Judge ordered it paid, but the Division Bench reversed. The Supreme Court dismissed the widow's appeal. The Board is a statutory, autonomous body whose own rules govern its staff, and State rules apply only if it adopts them. The M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 exclude work-charged staff, and the Board never adopted the 1979 pension rules for them. The 1997 order placed him in the work-charged establishment but did not regularise him. In 2015 the Board offered such employees the National Pension Scheme, and he did not opt in. Prem Singh, which concerned a regularised employee, did not apply.
Issues
- Whether the deceased was a regular employee of the Housing Board and, if he remained a work-charged employee, whether his widow is entitled to family pension.
Provisions considered
- Sections 14, 15 and 17, Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board Act, 1972The Board frames its own service regulations, and State Government rules do not apply to its employees unless specifically adopted. (¶ 7)
- Rule 2(ii)(a), M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976The Rules do not apply to persons in a work-charged establishment. (¶¶ 7, 10)
- Not adopted by the Board, M.P. Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979Because the Board never adopted these Rules, its work-charged employees had no pension entitlement under them. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Held
- The office order relied on merely appointed daily-wage muster-roll employees to the work-charged establishment; the deceased was never regularised and remained a work-charged employee till death. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Neither the 1976 Pension Rules nor the Board's regulations provided pension for work-charged employees, and the Board did not adopt the 1979 Pension Rules; instead, by its 2015 decision and order, it offered work-charged employees the option of the National Pension Scheme. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10, 11, 12)
- Since the deceased did not opt for the National Pension Scheme, the appellant cannot claim family pension; Prem Singh, which concerned an employee regularised on a vacant post, does not apply. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Division Bench's judgment denying family pension upheld; parties to bear their own costs.