SUNITA BURMANversusTHE COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND OTHERS

                        [2022] 14 S.C.R. 973                            973


                        SUNITA BURMAN                                   A
                                 v.
      THE COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND OTHERS
                  (Civil Appeal No. 7068 of 2022)                       B
                        OCTOBER 14, 2022
        [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                 HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
       Family Pension – Retiral Dues – Entitlement to – Division
                                                                        C
Bench of High Court in Writ Appeal reversed order passed by Single
Judge in Writ Petition whereunder Respondent No.1-Housing Board
was directed to pay family pension and other retiral dues to her on
demise of her husband – Issue as to whether deceased husband of
appellant was a regular employee of respondent No.1-Housing
Board and if not, would appellant still be entitled to receive family   D
pension if the deceased had remained a work charged employee in
the establishment of respondent No.1- Housing Board till the date
of his demise – Held: The deceased husband of appellant was not a
regular employee of respondent No.1-Housing Board – He had
remained a work charged employee in the establishment of Housing
                                                                        E
Board till the date of his demise – Being cognizant of the vacuum
relating to service conditions of the employees working in its work
charged establishments, respondent No.1-Housing Board had to
extend the benefit of pension to the said employees by bringing
them within purview of the National Pension Scheme (NPS) and
they were given an option to become a member of the said Scheme         F
so as to avail the benefit of pension – As her deceased husband
had elected not to opt for the said Scheme, the appellant cannot
claim entitlement to payment of family pension on his demise from
respondent No.1-Housing Board – Madhya Pradesh Work Charged
and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Service Rules,
                                                                        G
1975 –Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Gratuity
Benefit Rules, 1962 – Madhya Pradesh Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees Leave Rules, 1977.


                                                                        H
                                973
974           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
             HELD:1.1. An affidavit dated 15th 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 National Pension Scheme (NPS)
B     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
C     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
D     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
      02nd July, 2015, namely, the NPS. However, as per the records,
E     during his life time, the appellant’s husband did not opt for the
      said Scheme. [Para 12][982-E-H]
             2.1. The deceased husband of the appellant had remained
      a work charged employee till the date of his demise on 26th April,
      2016. His services had not been regularized. The Office Order
F     dated 29th October, 1997 relied on by the appellant to urge that
      the services of the deceased husband of the appellant had been
      regularized, is being misread as can be discerned from the first
      para of the said order which states that daily wages Muster Roll
      employees working between 26th May, 1974 to 30th June, 1981
      and named therein were being appointed in work charged
G     establishments and further, that the M.P. Work Charged and
      Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Service Rules,
      1977 was made applicable to them. However, the aforesaid rules
      were never adopted by the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board
      or extended to its work charged employees. Being cognizant of
H     the vacuum relating to the service conditions of the employees
      working in its work charged establishments, the Board of
    SUNITA BURMAN v. THE COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING AND              975
            INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD


Directors of respondent No.1-Housing Board had deliberated           A
over the matter and decided on 6th April, 2015 to extend the
benefit of pension to the said employees by bringing them within
the purview of the NPS and they were given an option to become
a member of the said Scheme so as to avail the benefit of pension.
As her deceased husband had elected not to opt for the said
                                                                     B
Scheme, the appellant cannot claim entitlement to payment of
family pension on his demise. [Para 14][983-E-H; 984-A-B]
      2.2. The deceased husband of the appellant was not a
regular employee of the respondent No.1 – Housing Board. He
had remained a work charged employee in the establishment of
the Housing Board till the date of his demise. Even while serving    C
in the said capacity, the appellant’s deceased husband could have
opted for pension under the NPS that was made available to the
work charged employees of the respondent No.1 – Housing
Board in terms of the order dated 02nd July, 2015. But he did
not opt for the said Scheme. The appellant is, therefore, not        D
entitled to receive family pension from the respondent No.1-
Housing Board. [Para 15][984-C-D]
      Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2019)
      10 SCC 516 : [2019] 11 SCR 1075 – distinguished.
      Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab 1988 SCC OnLine                 E
      P&H 338 – referred to.
                      Case Law Reference
[2019] 11 SCR 1075            distinguished          Para 4
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7068            F
of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Orders dated 23.01.2020 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Main Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No.
1600 of 2018.
       Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Ms. Priya Sharma, Arup Banerjee, Advs.   G
for the Appellant.
     Saurabh Mishra, AAG, R. C. Mishra, Sr. Adv., Ilin Saraswat,
Ms. Ananya Mishra, Mahendra Kumar, Ms. Ilma Saifi, Rajnish Kumar

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


A     Jha, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Ankit Mishra, Advs.
      for the Respondents.
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                HIMA KOHLI, J.
B            1. The appellant – widow of Late Munna Lal Burman, is aggrieved
      by the judgment dated 23rd January, 2020, passed by the Division Bench
      of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ
      Appeal No. 1600 of 2018 reversing the order dated 06.09.2018, passed
      by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 95 of 2007 whereunder
      the respondent No. 1 – M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development
C     Board1 was directed to pay family pension and other retiral dues to her
      on the demise of her husband.
             2. The admitted facts of the case are that on 28th April, 1977,
      Munna Lal Burman, husband of the appellant was engaged by the
      respondent No. 1 – Housing Board as a Muster Roll employee on daily
D     wages. Vide office order dated 29th October, 1997, he was appointed in
      the work charged establishment of the Housing Board. While continuing
      to work in the establishment, Munna Lal Burman expired on 26th April,
      2016. On 01st August, 2016 and 09th September, 2016, the appellant
      submitted applications to the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board for
E     grant of family pension which were turned down vide letter dated
      14th October, 2016, with an observation that there was no provision for
      grant of pension/family pension to employees working in the work charged
      establishment. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant filed a writ
      petition registered as Writ Petition No. 95 of 2017 before the High Court
      of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur praying inter alia for
F     grant of family pension, retiral dues, gratuity etc., on the demise of her
      husband. The said petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge,
      vide judgment dated 06th September, 2018 and the respondent No. 1 –
      Housing Board was directed to fix the retiral dues and family pension
      payable to the appellant in a time bound manner and release the arrears
G     of family pension with interest. The reasons that weighed with the
      learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition are as follows :-
                “12. In the present matter, it is clear from the order of appointment
                dated 29.10.1997 that the provisions of M.P. Work-charged and

      1
H         For short ‘Housing Board’
    SUNITA BURMAN v. THE COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING AND                      977
     INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD [HIMA KOHLI, J.]


      Contingency Paid Employees Rules were made applicable in the           A
      case of Late Munnalal. Regulation 5(d) of M.P, Gruha Nirman
      Mandal Regulations, 1998 provides that grant of pension/family
      pension and death-cum-retirement benefits to the regular officers
      and employees of the Board with effect from 01.07.1973 shall be
      regulated in accordance with M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
                                                                             B
      1976.
      13. The M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board
      has adopted the Regulations, 2015, which has been approved and
      confirmed by the State Government vide order No.F.23- 3/15/18-
      6 Bhopal dated 17.04.2015. The regulations 5(e) of the 2015
      Regulations provides that the order of grant of pension/family         C
      pension and death-cum-retirement benefit to the regular officers
      and employees of the Board with effect from 01.07.1973 shall be
      regulated in accordance with. the M.P. Civil Services (Pension)
      Rules, 1976. However, the regular officers and servants of the
      Board who have been appointed, on or after Ist of January, 2005,       D
      shall be covered by new National Pension Scheme. Hence, it is
      clear that the National Pension Scheme was not applicable to the
      deceased employee, as he was not appointed on or after Ist January,
      2005. Hence, the mistake committed by the respondent-Board in
      deduction of Rs.1940/- from the salary of late Munnalal under the
      National Pension Scheme, seems bonafide.”                              E

       3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the respondent No. 1 –
Housing Board preferred an appeal registered as Writ Appeal No.1600
of 2018 that was allowed by the Division Bench, vide judgment dated
23rd January, 2020 and it was held that the deceased husband of the
appellant being a member of the work charged establishment, was not          F
entitled to pension as he could not be treated at par with the regular
employees of the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board.
       4. Mr. S.K. Gangele, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant
argued that the High Court has fallen into an error by holding that the
appellant’s husband being a work charged employee of the respondent          G
No. 1 – Housing Board, is not entitled to pension. Placing reliance on the
office order dated 29th October, 1997 issued by the respondent No. 1 –
Housing Board which refers to a decision taken to regularize Muster
Roll employees as per their seniority, it was submitted that the name of
the appellant’s husband featured at serial No.5 of the tabulated statement   H
978               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A     forming a part of the aforesaid office order, which showed that he had
      become a regular employee of the Housing Board and was covered
      under the provisions of the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid
      Employees Recruitment and Service Rules, 1977. Learned counsel
      submitted that pension/family pension was payable to such an employee/
      his family under Regulation 5(d) of the M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal
B
      Regulations, 1998 and there was no justification for reversing the
      judgment dated 06th September, 2018, passed by the learned Single Judge
      in favour of the appellant. Lastly, it was contended that the impugned
      judgment runs contrary to the principles of law laid down in Prem Singh
      v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others2.
C            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
D     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
E     Board for the period between 26th 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
F     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 Scheme3 in terms of the order dated
      02nd July, 2015 which he didn’t, it was stated that the appellant is not
      entitled to receive family pension and the judgment in the case of Prem
      Singh (supra) had no application to the facts of the instant case.
G
             6. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned
      counsel for the parties and perused the records including the relevant
      rules and regulations. The only issue that arises for our consideration in
      2
          (2019)10 SCC 516
      3
H         For short ‘NPS’
        SUNITA BURMAN v. THE COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING AND                   979
         INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD [HIMA KOHLI, J.]


the instant appeal is as to whether the deceased husband of the appellant     A
was a regular employee of the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board and if
not, would the appellant still be entitled to receive family pension if the
deceased had remained a work charged employee in the establishment
of the respondent No. 1- Housing Board till the date of his demise.
       7. The respondent No.1 - Housing Board is a statutory and an           B
autonomous body established under the Madhya Pradesh Housing &
Infrastructure Development Board (Amendment) Act, 1972 4 for
implementation of housing schemes meant for the weaker sections/lower
income groups of society on a ‘no profit no loss basis’. Being a statutory
and an autonomous body, the Housing Board forms its own rules and
policies that govern the service conditions of its employees. The rules       C
laid down by the State Government for its employees are not automatically
applicable to the employees of the Housing Board unless specifically
adopted by the Board. The same is demonstrable from a perusal of
Sections 14, 15 and 17 of the Housing Board Act (that deal with
appointment of officers and servants of the Board; lay down conditions        D
of service of officers and servants and empowers the Board to make
service regulations in respect of its officers and servants) and on
examining the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Rule 2(ii) of
the aforesaid Rules clearly provides that the said rules shall not apply to
five categories of persons with ‘persons in a work-charged
establishment’ mentioned specifically in category (a) of the said Rule.       E
Neither is there any provision made for grant of pension to work charged
employees in the M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal Regulations, 1998 or in the
Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board
(Conduct of Business and Delegation of Powers) Regulation, 2015.
       8. Being alive to the fact that there were no rules in place to        F
regulate/govern the service conditions of employees working in the work
charged establishments of the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board, the
Board of Directors of the Housing Board had taken a conscious decision
in its Meeting No. 229, held on 06th April, 2015, to adopt the following
rules:                                                                        G
          i. Madhya Pradesh Work Charged and Contingency Paid
             Employees Recruitment and Service Rules, 1975 (Excluding
             Rule 4 to 8);

4
    For short ‘the Housing Board Act’                                         H
980            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A           ii. Madhya Pradesh Work Charged and Contingency Paid
                Employees Leave Rules, 1977; and
            iii. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Gratuity
                 Benefit Rules, 1962.
            9. For ready reference, the relevant abstract of the decision of
B     the Board of Directors of the Housing Board held on 06th April, 2015, is
      extracted below:
            “2. There is no rule or regulation framed or prescribed in relation
            to the regulation of services of said work charged employees in
            the Board. Due to non-determination of separate conditions of
C           service, difficulties arise in regulating their services.
            3. Therefore in order to regulate the services of work charged
            personnel working in the Board adopting of the following rules
            notified by the Government it is proposed –

D           (i) Model Rule “Madhya Pradesh -------- Department Work-
            charged and Contingency Paid Employees (Recruitment and
            Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975” (all rules except rule no. 4 to
            8) made through Circular ‘ no. D-34/444/1(three)/VOK/75 Bhopal
            dated 29.09.1975 of General Administration Department of
            Government of Madhya Pradesh. (Appendix-1)
E
            (ii) “M.P. Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Leave
            Rules, 1972”. (Appendix-2)
            (iii)”Work-Charged Staff and Contingency Paid Staff (Gratuity
            Benefits) Rules, 1962". (Appendix-3)
F           4. Work charged personnels working in the Board do not get the
            benefit of pension, while in other works department employees of
            Work-Charged establishment are getting pension under Madhya
            Pradesh (Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees)
            Pension Rules, 1979. At present the said rules are not relevant to
            the employees of the Board. M.P. Daily Wage Employee (Condition
G           of Rule), Rule 2013 (Appendix -4) has been adopted for the daily
            wage employees of the Board by which they have been brought
            within purview of National Pension Scheme regulated by PFRDA.
            For work charged employees also pension is proposed under
            PFRDA brief description of which is as follows:
H
       SUNITA BURMAN v. THE COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING AND                   981
        INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD [HIMA KOHLI, J.]


         (l) The National Pension Scheme initiated by PFRDA, which has       A
         been implemented in the State of Madhya Pradesh, with effect
         from 1st May, 2009 for the domiciles of Madhya Pradesh,
         (2) The employee can opt to be a member under National Pension
         Scheme and can avail the benefit of pension.
         (3) In case of an option given by the employee under sub-rule (2)   B
         above, a contribution equivalent to ten percent shall be deducted
         from his wages and the Government shall also contribute the
         equivalent amount and shall deposit it in the permanent account
         of the employee and the consolidated amount and permissible
         interest thereon shall be paid on his superannuation.”              C
       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             D
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        E
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          F
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 Authority5.           G
Para 8 of the order dated 2nd July, 2015 is relevant and reproduced
herein below for ready reference:
         “8. National Pension Scheme, launched by P.F.R.D.A, has been
         made applicable to Madhya Pradesh, which is effective for the
5
    For short ‘PFDRA’                                                        H
982            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A           domiciles of Madhya Pradesh from 1 May 2009. Pension under
            the National Pension Scheme, regulated by P.F.R.D.A, shall be
            payable to Work-charged Employees of the Board as under, a
            brief description of which is as follows:-
            1) The employee may opt for becoming member of National
B           Pension Scheme and avail the benefit of pension.
            2) In case of option given by an employee under the aforesaid
            Sub-Rule(1 ), contribution equal to10% shall be deducted from
            his wages/salary, and an equal amount of contribution shall be
            made by the Board, and deposited in his permanent Account and
C           the consolidated amount along with the permissible interest shall
            be payable to him upon his superannuation. The contribution to
            the pension shall be payable under Account Head-54.”
             12. In the course of arguments advanced before us on 19 th
      September, 2020, we had specifically enquired from learned counsel for
D     the respondents as to whether the 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
E     15th 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
F     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
G     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
H     – Housing Board was to exercise the option mentioned in para 8 of the
       SUNITA BURMAN v. THE COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING AND                      983
        INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD [HIMA KOHLI, J.]


order dated 02nd July, 2015, namely, the NPS. However, as per the               A
records, during his life time, the appellant’s husband did not opt for the
said Scheme.
       13. As for the decision in the case of Prem Singh (supra) cited
on behalf of the appellant, the question raised in the said matter related
to the validity of Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits           B
Rules, 1961 and Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations of
Uttar Pradesh. In a backdrop where this Court had earlier affirmed the
decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Kesar
Chand v. State of Punjab6, in relation to pari materia provisions enacted
in the State of Punjab which excluded computation of the period of work
charged services from qualifying service for grant of pension, a three          C
Judge Bench of this Court examined several decisions on this aspect
and on perusing the Note appended to Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh
Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and Regulation 370 of the Civil Services
Regulations, held that since the service of the appellant in the said case
had been regularized on a vacant post, Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement         D
Benefits Rules, 1961 ought to be read down in respect of the services
rendered by him even prior to his regularization and the period spent in
the capacity of a charged employee/contingency paid fund employee or
non-pensionable establishment employee ought to be counted towards
the qualifying service for extending the benefit of pension to such
employees.                                                                      E

        14. The fact situation in the case in hand is entirely different. The
deceased husband of the appellant had remained a work charged employee
till the date of his demise on 26th April, 2016. His services had not been
regularized. The Office Order dated 29th October, 1997 relied on by the
appellant to urge that the services of the deceased husband of the              F
appellant had been regularized, is being misread as can be discerned
from the first para of the said order which states that daily wages Muster
Roll employees working between 26th May, 1974 to 30th June, 1981 and
named therein were being appointed in work charged establishments
and further, that the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid                    G
Employees Recruitment and Service Rules, 1977 was made applicable
to them. We have noticed above that the aforesaid rules were never
adopted by the respondent No. 1 – Housing Board or extended to its
work charged employees. Being cognizant of the vacuum relating to the
6
    1988 SCC OnLine P&H 338                                                     H
984              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 14 S.C.R.


A     service conditions of the employees working in its work charged
      establishments, the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1 – Housing
      Board had deliberated over the matter and decided on 6th April, 2015 to
      extend the benefit of pension to the said employees by bringing them
      within the purview of the NPS and they were given an option to become
      a member of the said Scheme so as to avail the benefit of pension. As
B
      her deceased husband had elected not to opt for the said Scheme, the
      appellant cannot claim entitlement to payment of family pension on his
      demise.
             15. We therefore hold that the deceased husband of the appellant
      was not a regular employee of the respondent No.1 – Housing Board.
C     He had remained a work charged employee in the establishment of the
      Housing Board till the date of his demise. Even while serving in the said
      capacity, the appellant’s deceased husband could have opted for pension
      under the NPS that was made available to the work charged employees
      of the respondent No.1 – Housing Board in terms of the order dated
D     02nd July, 2015. But he did not opt for the said Scheme. The appellant is,
      therefore, not entitled to receive family pension from the respondent
      No. 1 – Housing Board.
             16. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any
      reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, which is upheld. The
E     present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed while leaving the parties to bear
      their own expenses.

      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                        Appeal dismissed.
      (Assisted by : Rakhi, LCRA)

F




G




H