Holding

The Office Memorandum of 24 December 2011 is an administrative order without binding effect and cannot override the statutory Office Memorandum of 5 May 2010; the appellants are entitled to revised pension effective 1 April 2010.

Summary

The appellants, eight retired assistant professors and a college librarian from Manipur, claimed a revised pension entitlement effective from 1 April 2010 based on an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 5 May 2010, which was issued by the Governor and had statutory force. The State Government issued a later OM on 24 December 2011 seeking to shift the pension benefit date to 1 November 2010, arguing that the earlier date created an anomaly with serving staff. The High Court initially granted the petitioners relief, but the Division Bench set aside that order, holding that the later OM could alter the entitlement. The Supreme Court examined whether the 24‑December‑2011 OM, being an administrative order, could override the earlier statutory OM and whether the appellants had a vested right to the earlier pension date. The Court held that the later OM is merely clarificatory, lacks the Governor’s signature, and cannot defeat the vested right created by the 5‑May‑2010 OM and Clause 7 of the 12‑August‑2011 Order. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to revised pension from 1 April 2010, and the judgment of the Division Bench is set aside.

Issues considered

The later Office Memorandum dated 24 December 2011 can override the earlier Office Memorandum dated 5 May 2010 which has statutory force regarding pension entitlement.
Whether the appellants have acquired a vested right to receive revised pension from 1 April 2010 under Clause 3.1 of the 5 May 2010 OM and Clause 7 of the 12 August 2011 Order.
Whether a ‘clarificatory’ administrative order can alter the date of entitlement for retirees.
The relevance of the alleged anomaly between serving staff and retirees in determining the pension date.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 166, s. Article 309

Subjects

service lawpensionrevised payoffice memorandumvested rightadministrative orderstatutory orderManipurhigher educationclarificatory order

Judgment

[2022] 14 S.C.R. 777 777

DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. & ORS. A
v.
THE STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER (HIGHER AND TECHICAL EDUCATION)
GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR & ANR.
B
(Civil Appeal No. 2681 of 2022)
MARCH 31, 2022
[VINEET SARAN AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Service Law – Pension – Manipur Services (Revised Pay) C
Rules, 2010 - Benefit of Revised Pension Scheme - Binding force of
Office Memorandum - Over Statutory Order - The appellants are
retired Assistant Professors and a College Librarian - Manipur
Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2010 were framed on 05.05.2010 -
Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2010, issued by the Governor
provides that the pension benefits shall be paid from 01.04.2010 - D
On 24.12.2011 the State Government issued a further Office
Memorandum which provides that the benefit of increased Pension/
Family Pension on account of revision shall be paid from 01.11.2010
- The appellants invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court,
staking their claim for revised pension with effect from 01.04.2010 E
- Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held 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 5.05.2010, cannot be taken
away - Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the State and set
aside the judgment passed by the Single Judge - On appeal, held: F
The O.M of 24.12.2011 is in the nature of an administrative order
and it has not been made and executed in the name of the Governor
- In terms of Clause 3.1 of the O.M. of 05.05.2010, the appellants
have acquired a vested right to get revised pension from a date
which is applicable to the retired State Government employees - The G
O.M of 24.12.2011 though projected as an instrument to clarify a
subsisting anomaly to an O.M having statutory strength, in reality
encroaches upon acquired or vested right of the retirees to get such
benefit from 01.04.2010 - Such “clarificatory order” cannot be
permitted to override an Order having statutory strength - The O.M
H
777
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R.

A of 24.12.2011 would not have any binding effect so far as entitlement
of the appellants to receive revised pension from 01.04.2010 is
concerned.
Allowing the appeal, the Court

B HELD: 1. The Office Memorandum of 24th 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 12th August 2011, read in continuation with the
C Orders of 5th May 2010 and 3rd 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 5th May
2010, the appellants have acquired a vested right to get revised
pension from a date which is applicable to the retired State
D Government employees. The appellants have been placed in the
said pension regime, and this has been recognised by Clause 7
of the Order of 12th August 2011. [Para 15][788-C-D]
2. The Court is unable to agree with the main reasoning of
the Division Bench that by giving the appellants the benefit of
E revised pension with effect from 1st April 2010 an anomalous
situation would arise as serving staff(s) of higher educational
institutions could be getting the benefit of such revision from 1st
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
F rules meant for those in the Manipur State Service. In such a
situation, 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 24th December 2011 though projected as
G 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 1st April 2010. Such “clarificatory order” cannot be permitted
to override an Order having statutory strength. The Court

H
DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. v. THE STATE OF MANIPUR 779
REPRESENTED BY THE COMM’R GOVT. OF MANIPUR

accordingly hold that the appellants shall be entitled to receive A
revised pension with effect from 1st April 2010, considering the
provisions of Clause 7 of the Order of 12th August 2011. The
Office Memorandum of 24th December 2011 would not have any
binding effect so far as entitlement of the appellants to receive
revised pension from 1st April 2010 is concerned. [Para 16][788-
B
E-H; 789-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2681
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2017 of the High Court
of Manipur at Imphal in Writ Appeal (C) No.55 of 2016. C

Ngangom Junior, Atul Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Tanay
Hegde, Karun Sharma, Ashutosh Dubey, Advs. for the Respondents.
D
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
2. The appellants before us are eight retired Assistant Professors E
and a College Librarian, also superannuated, from the State of Manipur.
All of them had superannuated between 28th February 2006 and 31st
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 F
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
and this was communicated by the Government of India to the University
Grants Commission by a letter of 31st December 2008. The revised G
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 5th May 2010. Such Rules were to cover those appointed to
H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R.

A 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 5th May 2010 bearing
B
no.9/3/2010-FD (PIC) (“O.M. of 5th 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
C terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
4. Clause 3.1 of the O.M. of 5th May 2010 stipulated:-
“3.1. Save as otherwise mentioned in these orders, the revised
provisions as per these orders shall apply to
D 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 in-respect of employees who retired/died before 01/
E 01/2006.”
(quoted verbatim from paperbook)
5. On 3rd June 2011 by way of an order issued in terms of the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, certain revisions of
F 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 1st June 2006 and arrears for the period from 1st
November 2010 to 30th June 2011 were to be deposited in the respective
G.P.F. accounts of the employees. Clause 6 of this Order stipulated:-
G
“6. Rules relating to pension, family pension, gratuity and
encashment of leave, ex-gratia compensation, provident fund, etc.
Shall be as applicable to other State Government employees.”
(quoted verbatim from paperbook)
H
DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. v. THE STATE OF MANIPUR 781
REPRESENTED BY THE COMM’R GOVT. OF MANIPUR

6. On 12th August 2011, another Order [bearing no.7(7)/32009- A
HE(Misc.)Pt.(1)] was issued superseding the Order of 3rd 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
12th August 2011 read:-
“3. These orders shall come into force nationally with effect from B
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 C
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.
……. D

7. Rules relating to pension, family pension, gratuity and
encashment of Leave salary/Leave of any kind, Ex-gratia
Compensation, Provident Fund and New Pension Scheme no-win
force etc. shall be as applicable to other state Government
E
employees.
8. For those College Teachers/Equivalent Grads who retired/
superannuated between 01-01-2006 and 31-10-2010, Pension shall
be calculated on the basis of notional pay and AGP in the revised
pay.” F
(quoted verbatim from the paperbook)
7. On 24th December 2011 the State Government issued a further
Office Memorandum contemplating certain clarifications to the
department’s Order dated 12th August 2011. The areas of doubt and the
G
clarifications given thereto, to the extent these are relevant for adjudication
of this appeal, as specified in the said Office Memorandum of 24th
December 2011 were:-

H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R.

A “Sl. Points of doubts Clarification
No.

(1) (2) (3)

Para 3 of the order under reference, It is clarified that
B relates to deposit of arrear pay and pension/Family
allowances for the period from Pension/Retirement
01.11.2010 to 30.06.2011 into GPF Gratuity/Death
account actual cash Gratuity/Commutation of
payment from 01.07.2011 and Pension/Leave Encashment of
release of arrear pay and allowance those
of certain categories of employees college teachers who retired/diet
C for the period from 01.11.2010 to in harness during the period
30.06.2011 in 2(two) equal from 01.01.2006. to 30.06.2011
installments. However Provisions shall be calculated on the basis
for release of pension and other of the notional pay w.e.f.
retirement benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2006 or from the date of
01.11.2010 or 01.07.2011. In reti rement or death whichever is
respect of those college teachers later or on the basis of the actual
D who retired during the period emolument drawn in the pre-
01.01.2006 to 31.10.2010 and revised pay scales whichever is
01.11.2010 to 30.06.2011 were not more beneficial to the
mentioned in the order under incumbent. The difference of
reference. Decision of the amount between the pre revised
Government on the point under rate and the revised ratene
reference is required. time payment, like,
E
Retirement, Gratuity/Death
Further referring to para 8 of t he Gratuity/Leave Encashment, if
order under reference, for those found more beneficial, shall also
college teachers/equivalent grades be paid. Actual benefit of
who retired/ increased Pension/Family
superannuated between Pension on account of revision
F 01.01.12006 to 31.10.2010, as to shall be paid from 01.11.2010.
whether their retirement gratuity
will be revised or not may also be In the case of commutation of
clarified. Further, in respect of Pension, benefit will be given
those college teachers/equival ent on the basis of additional
Grades who expired during the amount of pension.”
period. Under reference as to
G whether their family pension/DG
will be revised or not, may also be
clarified.
(Emphasis added)
8. The dispute involved in this appeal is as to whether the appellants,
H as retired staffs from different colleges, are to get the benefits of revised
DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. v. THE STATE OF MANIPUR 783
REPRESENTED BY THE COMM’R GOVT. OF MANIPUR

pension from the date given in the Office Memorandum of 24 th A
December 2011 or from 1st April 2010, the latter date being made
applicable to those retired from various state services. The State
Government wanted to implement revised pension from 1st November
2010. The appellants invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Manipur High
Court, staking their claim for revised pension with effect from 1st April
B
2010. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition by a judgment delivered
on 30th October 2015. It was, inter-alia, 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 C
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 D
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 E
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 benefits as F
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 G
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 H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R.

A 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
B the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, in the judgment
under appeal, decided on 27th 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
C 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.
D 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
E 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
F required to be issued necessarily stipulating therein about monetary
benefit being 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
G 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
H monetary benefits being given to them w.e.f. 1.11.2010. The said
DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. v. THE STATE OF MANIPUR 785
REPRESENTED BY THE COMM’R GOVT. OF MANIPUR

stipulation has nothing to do with the matter relating to pension for A
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
B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 both Article 166 as also proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is not of much significance F
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 1st June 2006. The main G
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 24th December
2011 could not alter the benefits that the appellants became entitled to
under the aforesaid statutory instrument. The stand of the State
H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R.

A 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
B
from which they originated was enjoying. It has been pointed out that
the Order of 12th August 2011 superseded the Order of 3rd June 2011
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
C the Order of 12th 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.
D 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 24th December 2011 is
E only a clarificatory order and the original Order of 12th 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
F of 24th December 2011 to the extent that the same shifts the date of
getting actual benefit of pension/ family pension on account of revision
from 1st April 2010 to 1st November 2010.
12. The Order of 12th August 2011 has been issued in the name of
the Governor of the State of Manipur. On the rationale we have explained
G 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 12th 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
H
DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. v. THE STATE OF MANIPUR 787
REPRESENTED BY THE COMM’R GOVT. OF MANIPUR

clauses also do not specify the date from which revised pension is to be A
payable to the retirees. Clause 8 specifies the manner of computation of
pension for those who superannuated or retired between 1st January
2006 and 31st 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
B
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 has not been excluded by the Order
of 12th August 2011 made by the Governor of Manipur, either expressly
or by implication.
13. So far as the State Government’s employees are concerned, C
the revisions of provisions regulating pension and ancillary conditions
were guided by O.M. of 5th May 2010. The subject covered by this
memorandum would appear from the following clauses thereof:-
“No.9/3/2010-FD(PIC) : The undersigned is directed to say that
in pursuance of Government’s decision following the introduction D
of the Manipur Services (Revised-Pay) 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 E
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.” F
(quoted verbatim from paperbook)
14. No distinction is made in Clause 3.1 of the O.M. of 5th 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 G
appellants’ service origins become insignificant so far as application of
substantive part of the aforesaid revision of Pension Rules is concerned.
As we have already discussed, Clause 8 of the Order dated 12th August
2011 also does not contemplate special treatment for superannuated staff
of higher educational institutions in the State of Manipur to correlate
H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R.

A 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-à-vis 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 24th December 2011 could postpone the date of entitlement of
B
revised pension to 1st November 2010 for the appellants.
15. The Office Memorandum of 24th 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
C cemented under Government Order made on 12th August 2011, read in
continuation with the Orders of 5th May 2010 and 3rd 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 5th May 2010, the
appellants have acquired a vested right to get revised pension from a
D date which is applicable to the 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 12th 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
E effect from 1st April 2010 an anomalous situation would arise as serving
staff(s) of higher educational institutions could be getting the benefit of
such revision from 1st 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
F 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 24th December 2011 though projected as an instrument
to clarify a subsisting anomaly to an Office Memorandum having
G statutory strength, in reality encroaches upon acquired or vested right of
the retirees to get such benefit from 1st April 2010. Such “clarificatory
order” cannot be permitted to override an Order having statutory strength.
We accordingly hold that the appellants shall be entitled to receive revised
pension with effect from 1st April 2010, considering the provisions of
Clause 7 of the Order of 12th August 2011. The Office Memorandum of
H
DR. Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI (D) BY LRS. v. THE STATE OF MANIPUR 789
REPRESENTED BY THE COMM’R GOVT. OF MANIPUR

24th December 2011 would not have any binding effect so far as A
entitlement of the appellants to receive revised pension from 1st 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 30th
October 2015. B
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.
C
Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

D

E

F

G

H