REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2681 OF 2022

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17253 of 2017)

DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) 

BY LRS. & ORS.                ....APPELLANT(S)

       VERSUS

THE STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED 

BY THE COMMISSIONER (HIGHER 

AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION) 

GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR & ANR.                ....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T  

Leave granted.

2.The appellants before us are eight retired Assistant Professors

and   a   College   Librarian,   also   superannuated,   from   the   State   of

Manipur.   All of them had superannuated between 28

th

  February

2006 and 31

st

  July 2008. Subsequent to filing of the Petition for

Special Leave to Appeal, eleven teaching staffs from different colleges

in the same State have taken out an application for impleadment as

petitioners.  They are allowed to intervene in this appeal. 

3.Decision was taken by the Government of India to revise the pay

scales of teachers and equivalent cadres in the central universities

1

and   this   was   communicated   by   the   Government   of   India   to   the

University Grants Commission by a letter of 31

st

 December 2008. The

revised scales as per 6

th

 Pay Commission recommendation were to be

implemented by the State Governments as well.   In the State of

Manipur, Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 were framed in

exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the

Constitution of India on 5

th

 May 2010. Such Rules were to cover those

appointed to Civil Services and posts in connection with the affairs of

that State and which were under the rule making control of the

Government of Manipur. Following the introduction of the Revised Pay

Rules, certain modifications were made in the Rules guiding pension

and allied benefits of those covered by the civil services rules in that

State. These modifications were made by  an  Office Memorandum

dated 5

th

 May 2010 bearing no.9/3/2010­FD (PIC) (“O.M. of 5

th

 May

2010” in short) introduced by the Governor of Manipur. Though the

source of power for making such modifications was not spelt out in

the   said   memorandum,   this   was   made   in   pursuance   of   the

Government’s decision and fits the characteristic of a Rule made

under proviso to Article 309 or an executive order made in terms of

Article 166 of the Constitution of India. 

4.Clause 3.1 of the O.M. of 5

th

 May 2010 stipulated:­

2

“3.1. Save as otherwise mentioned in these orders, the revised

provisions  as  per   these orders  shall  apply  to 

Government servants who retire/die in harness on or after

01/01/2006, notionally with effect from 01/01/2006 or from

the data of retirement whichever is later, as the case may he,

with cash payment/actual benefit from 01/04/2010. Separate

orders   have   been   issued   in­respect   of   employees   who

retired/died before 01/01/2006.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

5.On 3

rd

 June 2011 by way of an order issued in terms of the

proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, certain revisions

of the scales of pay of different categories of posts in Government

Colleges under the Department of Higher Education and Technical

Education in the State of Manipur were mandated.  This Order was

to come into force with effect from 1

st

 June 2006 and arrears for

the period from 1

st

 November 2010 to 30

th

 June 2011 were to be

deposited   in   the   respective   G.P.F.   accounts   of   the   employees.

Clause 6 of this Order stipulated:­

“6. Rules relating to pension, family pension, gratuity and

encashment of leave, ex­gratia compensation, provident fund,

etc.   Shall   be   as   applicable   to   other   State   Government

employees.” 

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

6.On 12

th

 August 2011, another Order [bearing no.7(7)/32009­

HE(Misc.)Pt.(1)] was issued superseding the Order of 3

rd

 June 2011

in relation to different categories of college teachers (and equivalent

grades) specifying the revised scale of pay. Clauses 3, 7 and 8 of

this Order of 12

th

 August 2011 read:­

3

“3.  These orders shall come into force nationally with effect

from  01/01/2006 with monetary benefit from 01/11/2010

and actual case payment from 01/07/2011. The arrears for

the   period   from   01/11/2010   to   30/06/2011   shall   be

deposited   into   their   respective   G.P.F   Accounts   of   the

employees.

However, for those employees who subscribe contribution

under   the   New  Pension  Scheme  and   retired/  expired.  The

arrears for the period from 01/11/2010. To 30/06/2011 shall

be released in 2(two) equal instalments, first on 01/01/2012,

and second on 01/07/2012. 

…….

7.Rules   relating   to   pension,   family   pension,   gratuity   and

encashment   of   Leave   salary/Leave   of   any   kind,   Ex­gratia

Compensation, Provident Fund and New Pension Scheme no­

win force etc. shall be as applicable to other state Government

employees.

8.For   those   College   Teachers/Equivalent   Grads   who

retired/superannuated between 01­01­2006 and             31­

10­2010, Pension shall be calculated on the basis of notional

pay and AGP in the revised pay.” 

(quoted verbatim from the paperbook)

7.On   24

th

  December   2011   the   State   Government   issued   a

further Office Memorandum contemplating certain clarifications to

the department’s Order dated 12

th

  August 2011.   The areas of

doubt and the clarifications given thereto, to the extent these are

relevant for adjudication of this appeal, as specified in the said

Office Memorandum of 24

th

 December 2011 were:­

“Sl.

No.

Points of doubts Clarification

(1)(2) (3)

Para 3 of the order under

reference,   relates   to

deposit of arrear pay and

allowances   for   the   period

from   01.11.2010   to

It   is   clarified   that

pension/Family

Pension/Retirement

Gratuity/Death

Gratuity/Commutation

4

30.06.2011   into   GPF

account actual cash

 payment from 01.07.2011

and release of arrear pay

and   allowance   of   certain

categories of employees for

the   period   from

01.11.2010 to 30.06.2011

in   2(two)   equal

installments.   However

Provisions   for   release   of

pension   and   other

retirement   benefits   w.e.f.

01.11.2010 or 01.07.2011.

In respect of those college

teachers   who   retired

during   the   period

01.01.2006 to 31.10.2010

and   01.11.2010   to

30.06.2011   were   not

mentioned   in   the   order

under   reference.   Decision

of the Government on the

point   under   reference   is

required. 

         Further referring to

para 8 of the order under

reference, for those college

teachers/equivalent

grades who retired/

superannuated   between

01.01.12006   to

31.10.2010, as to whether

their   retirement   gratuity

will be revised or not may

also be clarified. Further,

in respect of those college

teachers/equivalent

Grades   who   expired

during   the   period.   Under

reference   as   to   whether

their   family   pension/DG

will be revised or not, may

also be clarified.

of   Pension/Leave

Encashment of those

  college   teachers   who

retired/diet   in   harness

during   the   period   from

01.01.2006.   to

30.06.2011   shall   be

calculated on the basis

of the notional pay w.e.f.

01.01.2006 or from the

date   of   retirement   or

death whichever is later

or   on   the   basis   of   the

actual   emolument

drawn in the pre­revised

pay scales whichever is

more   beneficial   to   the

incumbent.   The

difference   of   amount

between the pre revised

rate   and   the   revised

ratene   time   payment,

like,   Retirement,

Gratuity/Death

Gratuity/Leave

Encashment,   if   found

more   beneficial,   shall

also   be   paid.  Actual

benefit   of   increased

Pension/Family

Pension on account of

revision   shall   be   paid

from 01.11.2010. 

In   the   case   of

commutation   of

Pension, benefit will be

given   on   the   basis   of

additional   amount   of

pension.”

(Emphasis added)

5

8.The   dispute   involved   in  this   appeal   is   as  to   whether   the

appellants, as retired staffs from different colleges, are to get the

benefits   of   revised   pension   from   the   date   given   in   the   Office

Memorandum of 24

th

  December 2011 or from 1

st

  April 2010, the

latter date being made applicable to those retired from various state

services.   The   State   Government   wanted   to   implement   revised

pension from 1

st

 November 2010. The appellants invoked the writ

jurisdiction of the Manipur High Court, staking their claim for

revised pension with effect from 1

st

 April 2010. The Single Judge

allowed the writ petition by a judgment delivered on 30

th

 October

2015. It was, inter­alia, opined in that judgment:­

“12. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that by the Office

Memorandum dated 24.12.2011, as far as the claim of the

petitioners for grant of cash payment/actual benefits w.e.f.

1.4.2010 as provided under the Office Memorandum dated

5.5.2010,   cannot   be   taken   away   and   to   that   extent   the

aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 cannot be

enforced against the petitioners. This Court has also noted

that the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 24.12.2011 is

merely in the nature of clarification without modifying the

orders dated 3.6.2011 and 12.8.2011 and also an executive

order   which   cannot   prevail   upon   the   Office   Memorandum

dated 5.5.2010 which has statutory force which governs the

retiral benefits and they form  a part  of the Manipur  Civil

Services   (Pension)   Rules,   1977,   Commutation   of   Pension

under the Manipur Civil Services  (Commutation of Pension)

Rules,   2010   and   the   Manipur   Services   (Extraordinary

Pension) Rules, 1995.

13. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the present

writ   petition   is   allowed.   The   petitioners   will  be   entitled   to

enjoy the actual benefit of the cash payment/actual payment

as regards the pensioary benefits w.e.f. 1.4.2010 and other

6

benefits   as   mentioned   in   the   Office   Memorandum   dated

5.5.2010   and   they   shall   be   also   entitled   to   any   other

extension of benefits including arrears in terms of the order

dated  20.9.2011  or   any   subsequent   orders  that   may  have

been passed.

The petitioners who have rendered a long valuable service

in the field of education have volunteered to donate a sum of

Rs.1000/­ each from their entitlements for the benefit of the

children   of   the   Children   Home   managed   by   the   State

Government,   for   which   gesture,   this   Court   records   its

appreciation. The amount so donated by the petitioners will

be deposited in the account of the Children Home, Takyelpat,

managed   by   the   State   Government   to   be   utilised   for   the

immediate and personal needs of the resident children of the

Home.”

(quoted verbatim from the paperbook)

9.The State Government were successful in their appeal before

the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, in the

judgment under appeal, decided on 27

th

 January 2017, held:­ 

“[11] It be stated that pursuant to recommendation made

by  University grants commission and also upon resolution

being taken by Ministry of Human Resources, Govt. of India

relating to revision of pay, the Government of Manipur came

with   the   revision   of   pay   of   the   college   teachers   vide

notification   dated   12.8.2011.   The   said   order   relating   to

revision of pay scale as per clause 3 of the said notification

notionally   came   into   effect   from   1.1.2006   with   monetary

benefit   from   1.11.2010   and   actual   cash   payment   from

1.7.2011.   The   arrears   for   the   period   from   1.11.2010   to

30.6.2011 was stipulated to be deposited in the GPF Accounts

whereas OM dated 5.5.10 was issued in the wake of revision

of provisions relating to regulation of pension etc. on account

of introduction of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules

2010. The clause 3.1 does stipulate that provision of it would

come into effect from 1.1.2006 and monetary benefit was to

be paid from 1.4.2010.

Thus, it is evident that consequent upon revision of salary by

virtue   of   Manipur   Services   (Revised   Pay)   Rules,2010

applicable   only   in   case   of   State   Govt.   employees   the   said

Office Memorandum dated 5.5.10 dealing with the provision

regulating   revised   pension   was   required   to   be   issued

necessarily stipulating therein about monetary benefit being

7

paid from 1.4.2010. The provision relating to enforceability of

the Office Memorandum and payment of monetary benefit on

account of revision of pay was confined to the Government

employees who were being governed by the Manipur Services

(Revised   Pay)Rules,   2010   whereas   the   notification   dated

12.8.2011   relating   to   revised   scale   of   pay   of   the   college

teachers was issued by the State Govt. upon acceptance of

the   recommendation   of   the   UGC   and   Govt.   of   India   and

therefore the University teachers would be governed by the

stipulation made in that notification which speaks about the

monetary benefits being given to them w.e.f. 1.11.2010. The

said stipulation has nothing to do with the matter relating to

pension for the reason that monetary benefit which was to be

given from 1.11.2010 may be related to persons in service and

even the persons who got retired. However, if the proposition

laid down by the learned single Judge is accepted, a situation

which would be quite anomalous would come up whereby the

teachers who are in service would be entitled to monetary

benefit only w.e.f. 1.11.2010 whereas the retired employees

would   be   getting   monetary   benefit   from   1.4.2010.   It   be

reiterated that dispute is with respect to the date from which

teachers of the Universities/colleges will be entitled to have

monetary benefits, which dispute never pertains to any rules

relating to the pension and thereby there happens to be no

applicability of any of the provisions of the OM dated 5.5.2010

whereby provision relating to pension was revised.

[12] Under the circumstances, the learned single Judge

by resorting to the provisions under the Office Memorandum

dt.   5.5.2010   wrongly   held   that   the   petitioners   would   be

entitled to monetary benefit w.e.f. 1.4.2010 and thereby order

dated 30.10.2015 is hereby set aside. Consequently, it is held

that   the   petitioners   are   entitled   to   have   monetary   benefit

w.e.f. 01.11.2010 and not w.e.f. 1.4.2010. Accordingly, this

appeal stands allowed.”

10.Mr.   Ngangom   Junior,   learned   Advocate   appearing   for   the

appellants, has argued that his clients had migrated to the pension

regime created for the State Government employees, which was

guided by an Order issued by the Governor in pursuance of the

decision of the State Government. As we have already discussed

earlier in the judgment, power to issue such Order can be traced to

8

both Article 166 as also proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of

India. It is not of much significance under which Article the Rules

or Order was issued as in either case, the legal instrument would

be   endowed   with   statutory   strength.   We   have   already   quoted

Clause 3.1 of the amended Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules,

1977 in the earlier part of this judgment. It is not in dispute that

the appellants had retired after 1

st

 June 2006.  The main argument

of the appellants has been that since their pension entitlement was

covered   by   a   Rule   made   under   proviso   to   Article   309   of   the

Constitution of India, the Office Memorandum dated 24

th

 December

2011   could   not   alter   the   benefits   that   the   appellants   became

entitled to under the aforesaid statutory instrument.  The stand of

the State Government, represented by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned

Senior   Advocate,   is   that   the   revision   of   pay   scales   covers

superannuated  persons  from different   services  under  the  State

Government   including   those   within   the   education   department

itself. His contention is that even after the appellants migrated to

the 2010 Rules, they could not claim benefit different from, and

more than that the serving staffs of the department from which

they originated was enjoying. It has been pointed out that the

Order of 12

th

 August 2011 superseded the Order of 3

rd

 June 2011

9

revising pay of college teachers and we have already reproduced

Clause 8 of this Order. 

11.It has been emphasised on behalf of the State of Manipur that

the Order of 12

th

 August 2011 is not under challenge.  It has also

been argued on behalf of the State that the appellants who were

employed in the Technical and Higher Education Department of the

Government of Manipur enjoy pay scales and pensions higher than

that of Government employees or those engaged in judicial services

in the State of Manipur. On that count, it is urged that their

benefits cannot be equated with those of the original employees

appointed under the Manipur State Government Service Rules. The

judgment under appeal is also sought to be defended on the ground

that members from different services under the Government of

Manipur were receiving revised pay from different dates. It has also

been asserted that the Office Memorandum of 24

th

 December 2011

is only a clarificatory order and the original Order of 12

th

 August

2011   was   never   assailed   by   the   appellants.     Various   Cabinet

decisions as regards implementation of revision of pay orders were

brought   to   our   notice   but   we   need   not   go into  these   Cabinet

decisions in detail.   In this appeal, we are concerned with the

legality of the content of the Office Memorandum of 24

th

 December

10

2011 to the extent that the same shifts the date of getting actual

benefit of pension/ family pension on account of revision from 1

st

April 2010 to 1

st

 November 2010. 

12.The Order of 12

th

 August 2011 has been issued in the name of

the Governor of the State of Manipur. On the rationale we have

explained earlier, it can qualify for being an executive order in the

terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India as also a Rule

made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. But

this Order of 12

th

  August 2011 does not lay down any specific

stipulation   for   the   retired   college   teachers   or   those   holding

equivalent grades barring clauses 7 and 8 thereof, to which we

have referred to earlier in this judgment.  These clauses also do not

specify the date from which revised pension is to be payable to the

retirees.  Clause 8 specifies the manner of computation of pension

for those who superannuated or retired between 1

st

 January 2006

and 31

st

 October 2010. Clause 7 on the other hand relates to the

pension Rules to be applicable as in the  cases  of other State

Government employees.   Therefore, so far as the appellants are

concerned, their migration into the regime of the 2010 Rules meant

for State Government employees and their entitlement to revised

pension from a date applicable to the State Government employees

11

has not been excluded by the Order of 12

th

 August 2011 made by

the Governor of Manipur, either expressly or by implication.

13.So far as the State Government’s employees are concerned,

the   revisions   of   provisions   regulating   pension   and   ancillary

conditions  were   guided   by   O.M.  of  5

th

  May   2010.   The  subject

covered by this memorandum would appear from the following

clauses thereof:­

“No.9/3/2010­FD(PIC) : The undersigned is directed to say

that   in   pursuance   of   Government’s   decision   following   the

introduction   of   the   Manipur   Services   (Revised­Pay)   Rules,

2010, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to introduce the

following   modifications   in   the   rules   regulating   Pension,

Retirement / Death / Service Gratuity / Family pension /

Disability Pension under the Manipur Civil Services (Pension)

Rules,   1977   (hereafter   referred   to   as   Pension   Rules),

Commutation of Pension under  the Manipur Civil Services

(Commutation   of   Pension)   Rules,   2010   and   the   Manipur

Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1995.

2.These   orders   apply   to   State   Government   Employees

governed   by   the   Manipur   Civil   Services   (Pension)   Rules,

1977.”

(quoted verbatim from paperbook)

14.No distinction is made in Clause 3.1 of the O.M. of 5

th

 May

2010   between   different   categories   of   employees,   on   which

distinction Mr. Hegde has  emphasised  in his arguments. Thus,

once the appellants migrate into the Rules guiding other State

Government   employees,   the   appellants’   service   origins   become

insignificant   so   far   as   application   of   substantive   part   of   the

aforesaid   revision   of   Pension   Rules   is   concerned.   As   we   have

12

already discussed, Clause 8 of the Order dated 12

th

 August 2011

also does not contemplate special treatment for superannuated

staff of higher educational institutions in the State of Manipur to

correlate them with the existing staff of their original service for the

purpose of date of implementation of the revised pension. Thus, the

quantum of pension the appellants would receive vis­

à­vis retirees

from other services in the State of Manipur would not have impact

on the point of law we are examining in this appeal. We are testing

in this appeal if the Order passed on 24

th

  December 2011 could

postpone the date of entitlement of revised pension to 1

st

 November

2010 for the appellants. 

15.The Office Memorandum of 24

th

  December 2011 is in the

nature of an administrative order.  This Office Memorandum has

not been made and executed in the name of the Governor. But this

Office Memorandum seeks to take away substantive right of the

appellants   cemented   under   Government   Order   made   on   12

th

August 2011, read in continuation with the Orders of 5

th

 May 2010

and 3

rd

 June 2011. In our opinion, the course of action sought to

be adopted by the State is impermissible. In terms of Clause 3.1 of

the O.M. of 5

th

  May 2010, the appellants have acquired a vested

right to get revised pension from a date which is applicable to the

13

retired State Government employees. The appellants have been

placed in the said pension regime, and this has been recognised by

Clause 7 of the Order of 12

th

 August 2011. 

16.We   are   unable   to   agree   with   the   main   reasoning   of   the

Division Bench that by giving the appellants the benefit of revised

pension with effect from 1

st

  April 2010 an anomalous situation

would arise as serving staff(s) of higher educational institutions

could be getting the benefit of such revision from 1

st

  November

2010.  The State has made conscious decision to delink the retirees

from   the   service   conditions   guiding   the   serving   staffs   of   the

concerned institutions and placed them in the retirement rules

meant for those in the Manipur State Service. In such a situation,

we do not think the anomaly pointed out in the judgment under

appeal could be the guiding factor for fixing the date of entitlement

to revised pension benefits specified by the Service Rules. The

Office Memorandum of 24

th

 December 2011 though projected as an

instrument   to   clarify   a   subsisting   anomaly   to   an   Office

Memorandum   having   statutory   strength,   in   reality   encroaches

upon acquired or vested right of the retirees to get such benefit

from 1

st

 April 2010. Such “clarificatory order” cannot be permitted

to override an Order having statutory strength. We accordingly hold

14

that the appellants shall be entitled to receive revised pension with

effect from 1

st

 April 2010, considering the provisions of Clause 7 of

the Order of 12

th

  August 2011. The Office Memorandum of 24

th

December   2011   would   not   have   any   binding   effect   so   far   as

entitlement of the appellants to receive revised pension from 1

st

April 2010 is concerned.

17.Under the circumstances, the judgment under appeal is set

aside. We restore and affirm the judgment of the Single Judge

dated 30

th

 October 2015.  

18.The appeal is accordingly allowed.

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

20.There shall be no order as to costs.

……………………………….J.

(VINEET SARAN)

……………………………….J.

(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)

New Delhi;

March 31, 2022

15