Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 352 (MP)

KAMLABAI GOGATE v. STATE OF M P

1984-07-20

K.M.AGRAWAL, U.N.BHACHAWAT

body1984
JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition which echoes the cry of a widow who has been thrown on the thorns of her life and left to bleed. ( 2. ) THE petitioner, after having unsuccessfully run from pillar to post with the administrative authorities in the matter of the post-retirement benefits of her late husband, who had retired on 13th April, 1968 and expired in the year 1973, but could not get the said benefits in his lifetime, has knocked the door Of this Court to seek justice. ( 3. ) ON 25th June, 1984 when this petition came up for hearing on the question of admission, Shri M. L. Modi, Additional Government Advocate, took notice of the petition, realising the urgency of the petition and undertook to file the return by 30th of june, 1984. This could not be done on this date and for which an application I. A. No. 2841 of 1984 was filed by the Deputy Government Advocate Shri R. A. Roman, stating: "that telephonic intimation was given to the Superintendent of Collectorate vidisha on 3-7-1984 and also to the Collector on 11-7-1984 to send Officer in charge to file return but the officer in charge has not yet reached to verify and submit for return. " and a weeks time for filing the return was prayed for. The time was granted as respondent No. 2 was also not, till then, served and a notice was directed to be issued to respondent No. 2 also and the case was directed to be listed on 17th July, 1984. It may be mentioned here that Shri N. P. Mittal, the Standing Counsel for the Union of India, who was present in the Court, also took notice, realising the importance of the expeditious disposal of the case. In the meantime, return was filed on behalf of the State government on 16th July, 1984. Respondent No. 2, that is, the Accountant General, madhya Pradesh, filed the return on the 17th July, 1984. ( 4. ) IN the return of respondent No. 2, it was stated that the concerned pension papers have been received by him on the 13th of July, 1984, but there were certain deficiencies, which were pointed out to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, who had contacted him on the 13th of July, 1984. ( 4. ) IN the return of respondent No. 2, it was stated that the concerned pension papers have been received by him on the 13th of July, 1984, but there were certain deficiencies, which were pointed out to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, who had contacted him on the 13th of July, 1984. Respondent No. 2 was, therefore, directed to detail out the deficiencies, which has been done on 19th July, 1984 vide the supplementary return. ( 5. ) FROM the return of the respondent No. 2, it is clear that the pension papers have been sent by the State Government to respondent No. 2 and the claim would be settled ton the fulfilment of the deficiencies by the State Government, as pointed out in the supplementary return of respondent No. 2, namely : "pay fixation as on 1-4-1958 and as on 1-7-1960 has not been got approved by director of Treasury and Accounts. No dues certificate has also not been enclosed with the pension case. " From what we have stated hereinabove, it is apparent that but for this petition and the order of this Court dated 25th June, 1984 and the co-operation of the learned Additional government Advocate promptly taking notice, the papers would not have reached respondent No. 2, which is the ultimate authority to settle the pension claim, even on 13th July, 1984. It passes our apprehension as to why the matter of settlement of post-retirement benefits of the husband of the petitioner could not be disposed of for a long period of sixteen years, nor there is any satisfactory explanation therefor in the return of the State. We feel that but for the vigilance of this Court in expediting the hearing of this case and the appreciable cooperation of the learned Additional Government Advocate shri M. L. Modi and Shri N. P. Mittal, Standing Counsel for the Union of India, the matter would not have reached the stage it has reached today. The application I. A. 2841 of 1984, the relevant extract whereof is quoted hereinabove in paragraph 3 of this order, indicates that despite the reminder from the Government Advocates Office to the concerned officers, the Officer in-Charge did not care to reach in time the Government advocates Office for filing the return in time. ( 6. The application I. A. 2841 of 1984, the relevant extract whereof is quoted hereinabove in paragraph 3 of this order, indicates that despite the reminder from the Government Advocates Office to the concerned officers, the Officer in-Charge did not care to reach in time the Government advocates Office for filing the return in time. ( 6. ) IN view of the return filed by the State and respondent No. 2, we allow the petition and direct as under : ! (a) that the State Government shall complete the deficiencies pointed by respodent No. 2 by 20th August, 1984; (b) that respondent No. 2 shall settle the post-retirement benefits/claims of late shri D. T. Gogate-husband of the petitioner on or before 20th October, 1984 and (c) that on or before 20th November, 1984 after the settlement of the claim by respondent No. 2, the State Government shall make the payment that is due and payable to the petitioner on the date of settlement and thereafter shall continue to pay all those benefits to which the petitioner may be entitled as per the settlement by respondent No. 2. No order as to costs. ( 7. ) BEFORE parting with this order; we would like to observe that we are living in a welfare State. The post-retirement benefits are by way of social security. It is the well-known and declared policy of the Government about the settlement of the post-retirement benefits, which are by way of social security for the retired Government servants, that they should be quickly settled so that the retired Government servants may not suffer hardship. This policy, despite the keenness of the Government, will not reach a fruition unless the limbs, that is, the officers and the officials concerned, act with sincerity, devotion and promptness. In the circumstances of the case, we consider it advisable that this case, which is an eye-opener about the harassment and hardship due to callous negligence and inaction of the administrative machinery should be brought to the notice of the high ups in the Government so that things can be mended and repetition of such callousness resulting in the emasculation of welfare legislations and policies is avoided. We, therefore, direct the Additional Registrar of this Bench Registry to send a copy of this order to the Secretary to the Chief Minister and Law Minister with a direction that it be placed before the Chief Minister and the Law Minister. Petition allowed.