Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 418 (MP)

I. P. Malik v. State of M. P.

2002-04-16

AJIT SINGH, BHAWANI SINGH

body2002
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition is directed against the order of M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal Bench, Bhopal (SAT), dated 11-6-1998, passed in O. A. No. 577/1993. ( 2. ) SHORTLY stated, the petitioner was employed in P. W. D. , Government of Madhya Pradesh. He retired from the post of Assistant Engineer. Through O. A. No. 577/1993, he is seeking direction against respondents for payment of interest on pension, gratuity and leave encashment at the rate of 12% per annum for delayed payments of these service benefits by the respondents. Allegation is that respondents did not pay these benefits immediately after his superannuation from service despite time to time representations. Ultimately, anticipatory pension was sanctioned on 26-11-1992 and final pension sanctioned on 27-3-1995. Similarly, gratuity was sanctioned on 26-11-1992 and paid to the extent of 90%. Leave encashment which could be offered immediately on retirement, was also delayed similarly. ( 3. ) RESPONDENTS submit that delay was not committed by them; rather petitioner is responsible for the same having furnished prescribed proformas duly filled with regard to drawal of pension, gratuity, leave encashment and contributory funds etc. on 22-5-1992. Thereafter, clarification was sought on 28-11-1992 (Annexure R-2 ). Pension was sanctioned on 26-11-1992, though gratuity was paid to the extent of 90%. Later on, 10% gratuity was disbursed on 30-5-1995 before issuance of direction by SAT. ( 4. ) FUNDAMENTAL question for examination is whether the respondents have committed the default in delayed payment of service benefits to the petitioner or the petitioner was at fault. This question can be examined in the context of M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, (for short, the Rules ). Ku. Malti Dadariya, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that rspondents have delayed the payment of service benefits to the petitioner unduly, therefore, petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date these benefits fell due, while Shri B. Da Silva, Dy. Advocate General depends on Annexure R-1, dated 29-5-1992 and R-2, dated 28-10-1992, read with Form 7 under Rule 59 (2) of the Rules. ( 5. ) GIVING serious consideration to the whole matter, we proceed to deal with the question in issue. Advocate General depends on Annexure R-1, dated 29-5-1992 and R-2, dated 28-10-1992, read with Form 7 under Rule 59 (2) of the Rules. ( 5. ) GIVING serious consideration to the whole matter, we proceed to deal with the question in issue. Rule 57 of the Rules enjoins that every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparing pension papers in Form 6 two years before the date on which a Government servant is due to retire on superannuation, or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement whichever is earlier. It is explicit in this respect that duty is cast on the Head of Office to prepare pension papers of the Government servant two years before the date of retirement. The rule is mandatory and salutary, purpose being that the Government servant should be in a position to receive pension immediately on retirement so that he is not left without any subsistence. Rules following this rule do not envisage any burden on the pensioner to undertake any exercise in this regard except where he wants to exercise in option with regard to place of payment of pension etc. otherwise the whole exercise, right from the verification of service to the final order of payment of pension is to be completed by the Head Office and the Audit Department. ( 6. ) THE rules protect the interests of the pensioner. There is provision for payment of anticipatory pension, the purpose being that if for some reason, pension could not be made available to the employee on retirement, he is paid anticipatory pension and amount of gratuity to the extent of 90% so that he survives on it. Final pension and remaining amount of gratuity is to be paid soon thereafter. Deduction from gratuity is envisaged in case an employee has to pay Government dues, but where there is no due, there is no reason why this amount should be withheld. ( 7. ) SHRI B. Da Silva, learned Dy. Advocate General, drew our attention to the fact that petitioner was on deputation and thereafter on re-employment with the M. P. Co-operative Housing Federation, T. T. Nagar, Bhopal, before and after the retirement. ( 7. ) SHRI B. Da Silva, learned Dy. Advocate General, drew our attention to the fact that petitioner was on deputation and thereafter on re-employment with the M. P. Co-operative Housing Federation, T. T. Nagar, Bhopal, before and after the retirement. Therefore, information in this regard was furnished by the petitioner at a later stage and that Form 7, under sub-rule (2) of Rule 59 of the Rules requires the pensioner to append his signatures. We are not satisfied with either of the submissions, reason being that Rule 64 (a) of the Rules casts the burden to deal with the matter on the Head of Office concerned. Further, it has to be dealt with as per Rule 57. Assuming that the petitioner has to append his signatures to Form 7 under sub-rule (2) of Rule 59, that is part of the exercise to be undertaken by the Head Office in terms of Rule 57 and rules following thereto. ( 8. ) THE result of our discussion is that petitioner has not been sanctioned/paid service benefits like pension, gratuity and leave encashment on his retirement from service. Therefore, delay has been committed by the respondents and not the petitioner. ( 9. ) CONSEQUENTLY, petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1-5-1986 till the date of respective payments. Respondents are directed to implement this judgment within three months from today. The order of the SAT dated 11-6-1998 is modified to the extent aforesaid.