Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 857 (MP)

Aditya Mishra v. State of M. P.

2013-07-24

K.K.TRIVEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT K.K. Trivedi, J.:- The petitioner has claimed interest on his retiral dues, which according to the petitioner, were illegally withheld by the respondents on false pretext that the petitioner was facing an investigation for economic offence and, therefore, was not liable to be paid the retiral dues, though the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31-1-2010. It is contended by the petitioner that while working on the post of Superintending Engineer in the establishment of respondents No. 1 and 2, he stood superannuated on 31-1-2010. All pensionary claims, retiral dues of the petitioner were required to be settled by the respondents expeditiously under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). However, such retiral dues of the petitioner were illegally withheld without any justified reason. In fact the respondent No. 3 was harbouring personal animosity against the petitioner and he being the nodal officer to process the retiral claim of the petitioner, made every efforts to ensure that the petitioner is denied his retiral dues. There was nothing against the petitioner as a no dues certificate was issued in his favour on 2-2-2010 and, thus, under the requirement of the Rules, the claim of the petitioner was to be settled expeditiously. However, since the petitioner was on deputation working in the Madhya Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board, certain complaints were made against the petitioner for financial irregularity. On such complaint, some sort of enquiry was conducted by the investigating agency and ultimately the petitioner was exonerated as nothing was found in his respect. However, only on the basis of such pending investigation, the right of the petitioner to receive the pension and retiral dues was not to be withheld. Ultimately all the claims of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 15,28,016/- were paid by cheque dated 3rd March, 2011. This being so, the petitioner would be entitled to interest on the amount illegally withheld. Upon issuance of the notices of the writ petition, the respondents have filed a return. Though the respondent No. 3 is made a party by name but he has not filed his independent return denying any allegation made against him. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has represented him also before this Court. Upon issuance of the notices of the writ petition, the respondents have filed a return. Though the respondent No. 3 is made a party by name but he has not filed his independent return denying any allegation made against him. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has represented him also before this Court. In the return it is contended that a complaint Investigation Case No. 119/2008 was registered against the petitioner in the Lokayukt. Some sort of investigation was going on. It was the reason on account of which the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner was not released. Ultimately when a report was submitted and the case against the petitioner was closed, which fact was intimated by the Lokayukt establishment to the respondents on 11-2-2011, expeditiously all the claims of the petitioner were worked out and paid to him. This being so, it is contended that there is no wilful delay caused in making payment of the retiral dues and as such the petitioner would not be entitled to grant of any interest on the alleged delayed payment of retiral dues. The petition is said to be misconceived and sought to be dismissed. The respondents have further placed their reliance on the Rules and have contended that since there is no provision for making payment of interest on the retiral dues, such a claim is misconceived. 2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the provisions of the Rules, it is clear that there was no justified reason for withholding the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner. In fact under the scheme of the Rules which has been adopted in toto by the respondents, the preparation of the pension case has to be started by the Head of Office well in advance. In Chapter-VIII of the Rules, specific provisions are made for application and sanction of pension. Rule 49 prescribes that a list of officers and employees is to be prepared well in advance, who are to retire within a period of six months. This list is to be prepared on every 1st January and every 1st July of each year. The purpose of preparing the list is to not only inform the officer or employee who is going to retire but also to start the procedure for preparing the pension papers. This list is to be prepared on every 1st January and every 1st July of each year. The purpose of preparing the list is to not only inform the officer or employee who is going to retire but also to start the procedure for preparing the pension papers. Rule 57 of the Rules specifically prescribes that every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparing pension papers two years before the date on which the Government servant is due to retire on superannuation or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement, whichever is earlier. This is all to be done in advance why because an employee or officer, who receive the salary every month, would have no means of livelihood after the date of retirement and such an officer or employee is not to put to the financial hardship on account of retirement. Otherwise the very purpose of grant of pension is frustrated. Rule 59 of the Rules further prescribes that before 13 months from the date of retirement, the Head of Office shall take up the actual work of preparation of pension and get it completed within the time the officer or employee is to retire. 3. There is another specific provision made under Rule 64 of the Rules where the provisional pension is to be granted in case a retiring employee or officer is facing any departmental or judicial proceeding. It is categorically provided in the aforesaid Rule that in respect of Government servants referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules, the Head of Office shall authorize the payment of provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension and 50% of gratuity taking into consideration the gravity of charges levelled against such Government servant or officer, who is to retire. For the purposes of the departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings, though nothing is said in the definition contained in Rule 3 of the Rules but the same is prescribed in Rule 9 of the Rules. For the purposes of the departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings, though nothing is said in the definition contained in Rule 3 of the Rules but the same is prescribed in Rule 9 of the Rules. It is categorically provided in Rule 9(6) of the Rules that the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date on such date and the judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in case of a criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made and in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court. 4. Thus, it is to be seen that the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date the charge-sheet is issued to the employee concerned, whether before his retirement or after the retirement. Similarly, the judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of criminal proceedings on the date when the challan is filed in the Court in the shape of a final report of the police officer. In none of the other cases, pension can be withheld or stopped. Under the aforesaid Rule, there is no provision made for withholding of the pension or delaying the payment of pension to a retired officer. In view of this, justification shown by the respondents in their return for not releasing the pension and retiral dues to the petitioner on the date when he retired or soon thereafter or even granting him the provisional pension and gratuity, that a complaint was being enquired into against him, cannot be accepted. Since mere recording of a complaint against the petitioner and starting an investigation by the Economic Offences Bureau or Lokayukt was not constitution of a criminal proceeding against the petitioner in terms of the definition of judicial proceedings indicated in Rule 9(6) of the Rules aforesaid, no right was available to the respondents to delay the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner. Apparently this was done only because of lodging of complaint against the petitioner in the office of the Lokayukt where a complaint case was registered against him. Apparently this was done only because of lodging of complaint against the petitioner in the office of the Lokayukt where a complaint case was registered against him. As soon as the same was closed, information was given to the respondents, the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner was made. 5. That being so, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be accepted and it has to be held that there was unauthorized delay in making the payment of retiral dues to the petitioner. Now the question would be, to what extent the petitioner would be entitled for grant of interest. Though in the writ petition interest has been claimed at the rate of 12% per annum for all the delay caused in making the payment of retiral dues but looking to the facts and circumstances and the delay caused in making the payment, it is directed that the petitioner would be entitled to 8% interest on the amount of retiral dues paid to him belatedly from the date the same was due, i.e. w.e.f. 1-2-2010 till the date the payment was made to him, as claimed by the petitioner. The amount and the due dates have been mentioned by the petitioner in paragraph 5.14 of the petition, which he would inform to the respondents by making an application in this respect along with copy of this order. Let the aforesaid interest be calculated and be paid to the petitioner within a month from the date of receipt of such application. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.