Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 840 (MP)

State of M. P. v. R. B. Dubey

2012-09-03

K.K.LAHOTI, VIMLA JAIN

body2012
ORDER 1. The controversy involved in this appeal is very short that the respondent was not entitled for voluntary retirement under rule 42(1)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, as he had not completed qualifying service of 20 years. 2. It is submitted that during the period between 1.8.1980 and 18.9.1986, the respondent was working on ad hoc basis. On 18.9.1986 the services of the respondent were regularised and for the purposes of counting period for pension, the services rendered by the respondent after 18.9.1986 could have been counted and if the aforesaid prior period is not counted then till 10.5.2003 respondent had not completed 20 years of qualifying service so he was not entitled for voluntary retirement or for pension. 3. The respondent who is appearing in person submitted that the aforesaid period was treated as a regular service, the application of the respondent for voluntary retirement under rule 42(1)(a) was allowed and the respondent was found entitled for voluntary retirement. It was submitted that if the respondent had not been completed qualifying period of service then his application ought to have been rejected by the appellants but once the appellants had allowed the application treating the aforesaid period as regular service, the respondent is entitled for calculation of the aforesaid period for fixing pension. It was submitted that the order, Annexure P-4 dated 16.7.2003, was issued by the State Government after due consideration of the period of regular service rendered by the respondent and now the respondent cannot be denied calculation of the period between 1.8.1980 and 18.9.1986 for fixing the pension of the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that if the order Annexure P-4 was passed on wrong premise, the appellants be allowed one opportunityto examine the case of the respondent whether he was entitled for voluntary retirement under rule 42(1)(a) of the pension rules or to pass an appropriate order in this regard taking back services of the respondent as Assistant Professor of Law, the post on which he was rendering services before passing of the order, Annexure P-4, or to treat the case of the respondent as a special case in peculiar facts of the case for the purpose of voluntary retirement and for payment of pension to the respondent. 5. 5. On raising such contention the respondent submits that he has no objection if the State Government is allowed an opportunity to re-examine the matter and in case it is found that the application of the respondent under rule 42(1)(a) was premature then tocontinue the service of the respondent in the Government job with all consequential benefits and on this he has no objection. However, it was submitted by him that the appellants may not be permitted to take a different stand retiring the respondent under rule 42(1)(b) of the aforesaid Rules as it will be prejudicial to his interest. Apart from this, the respondent had never filed any application under rule 42(1)(b) of the aforesaid Rules. To this the appellants has no objection. 6. In view of the aforesaid contentions, we grant limited liberty to the appellants to re-examine the matter and in case it is found that the application of the respondent for voluntary retirement under rule 42(1)(a) was premature then to pass an appropriate order but not prejudicial to the interest of the respondent. 7. With the aforesaid liberty this appeal is finally disposed of. The appellants shall take a final decision in this regard within a period of 90 days from today failing which the appellant shall give effect to the order passed by the Single Bench, as passed in Writ Petition No.3549/2004 dated 28.2.2011. No order as to cost.