Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 339 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Shakun Devi Singh

2014-03-26

A.K.SHARMA, RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
Judgment: 1. Calling in question tenability of the order dated 24th February, 2011 passed by the writ court in W.P. No. 7863/2009, this appeal has been filed by the State Government. The respondent is a 70 years old lady and the question pertains to the withdrawal of the family pension which she was receiving for a period of more than 40 years i.e. since 1981. 2. Facts in nutshell goes to show that late Shri Balmik Singh was working in the Agriculture Department and after his death family pension was granted to the petitioner. It is seen that on 28th February, 1987 a circular was issued by the State Government vide Annexure P/2 wherein it was indicated that every members of family or dependent of an employee who had retired or died prior to 01/04/1966 shall be entitled to receive family pension. Petitioner claimed family pension based on the aforesaid circular and submitted an application to the Deputy Director of Agriculture Development and the Farmers Welfare Organization, Satna, the same was taken up for consideration and after due approval and concurrence of the competent authority, the State Government passed an order granting family pension to the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid circular, family pension was ordered to be granted to the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. 01/04/1981 and an appropriate order in this regard was passed. The appellant was in receipt of the family pension retrospectively from 01/04/1981 and when all of a sudden based on a communication received from the office of Accountant General of Madhya Pradesh, the State Government passed an order on 22/10/2007 canceling the family pension of the petitioner without hearing her and without notice to her and without indicating any reason and when the pension which she was being granted was withdrawn in the manner indicated hereinabove, she represented to the authorities and when nothing was done in the matter, the writ petition in question was filed and in the writ petition, the petitioner raised the grounds as are indicated hereinabove. Respondents filed a reply which is available on record. Respondents filed a reply which is available on record. In the reply the respondents admitted the position with regard to grant made in accordance to the circular dated 28/02/1987 but only says that based on the communication received from the office of the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, the impugned action is taken and it is tried to be pointed out that there is no record available with the department to show that late Shri Balmik Singh, was a government employee and has retired prior to the cut of date fixed by the circular dated 28/02/1987, it is said that on such consideration family of the petitioner was withdrawn. Respondents trying to justify their action on this ground. The writ court held that the action is unsustainable and allowed the writ petition. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General argued that as per the circular on such dependent and family members are entitled for pension where the employees was in government employment prior to the cut of date i.e. w.e.f. 01/04/1966 and in the case of the present petitioner as there was no material and documents available on record to show that late Balmik Singh was a government employee before 01/04/1966, based on the recommendation made by the A.G.M.P., the impugned action is taken. 3. Shri S.S. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent refuting the aforesaid argued that when the sanction was made after due inquiry it presuppose that the employees i.e. late Balmik Singh was working in the government department, all the requirements of circular dated 28/02/1987 are fulfilled and now if the respondents want to withdraw the benefit which was granted to the dependent of a deceased employee for a period of 40 years, then recording of cogent reasons and complying with the principle of natural justice was required. This having not been done learned counsel submits that the impugned action taken was unsustainable and no interference is called for now the writ court has not committed any error. 4. We find much force in the aforesaid submissions made by Shri S.S. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent. It is an admitted position that when the circular Annexure P/2 dated 28/02/1987 was issued, the respondent/petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed format giving all the details as is evident from the Annexure P/3. 4. We find much force in the aforesaid submissions made by Shri S.S. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent. It is an admitted position that when the circular Annexure P/2 dated 28/02/1987 was issued, the respondent/petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed format giving all the details as is evident from the Annexure P/3. The format Annexure P/3 was the one prescribed by the State Government and in the said application various particulars of the employee, the office where he had worked and certain certificates issued with regard to his work were required to be enclosed. The petitioner enclosed all these certificates and gave all the particulars as were sought for in the prescribed format circulated along with the communication or policy i.e. circular dated 28/02/1987, thereafter on due inquiry orders were passed granting pension to the respondent retrospective w.e.f. The year 1981. 5. When the respondent applied in pursuance to the circular dated 28/02/1987 and when she was granted pension by an order passed by the competent authority based on the requirements as contemplated in the circular an assumption has to be drawn that before grant of pension was made to the respondent, all formalities required for and on inquiry into the matter were conducted. It may be taken note of that when the grant of pension made to the employee vide Annexure P/6 sometime in the year 2004 it was made retrospectively w.e.f. The year 1981 that is how she has been in receipt of pension since, 1981. 6. It is therefore, clear that based on the procedure that in accordance to law and after following all the process department sanctioned the pension. It has to be presumed that all the requirements of the circular Annexure P/2 dated 28/02/1987 were fulfilled and the employee/dependent was fully entitled to get the pension, it is only after the formalities were completed that orders were passed for grant of pension. 7. Even if any mistake was committed and if pension was granted in a improper manner, the same can be corrected and the State has a right to correct the mistake, but before doing so cogent reasons have to be in existence, they should be indicated and other material available should demonstrate that there was an error in granting the benefit of family pension to the petitioner, which is being withdrawn now. When the matter was taken up by the learned writ court in writ petition and when the matter is being considered by us today except for contending that the action was taken on the basis of communication received from the office of Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh and for saying so there is no record available, no reason or justification is forthcoming from the State Government to show as to how and in what manner the application Annexure P/3 submitted by the petitioner was processed and what was the process adopted and why the same is being withdrawn. Without any material being available to show that the decision earlier taken is incorrect the impugned action cannot be upheld. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner is responsible for incorrect decision or that some fraud has been committed by her. As the service record of each employee is maintained by the department in the due course of its business and this should be available with the department. The department has to justify by giving cogent reasons and justification for taking the impugned action particularly when the pension of a 70 years widow lady is being withdrawn. Taking note of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the manner in which the State Government has withdrawn the pension granted to the petitioner cannot be approved by this court or if the appellant wanted to withdraw the benefit which was granted to the petitioner they should have done so only after conducting a proper inquiry into the matter, recording a finding to show how she was not entitled to the benefit or what criteria are not fulfilled in her case, no such material, no such inquiry and no such findings are available, under such circumstances the action taken is nothing but in arbitrary and unreasonable decision taken that also in violation of the principle of natural justice. By granting family pension to the respondent right from the year 1981 up to the date when the impugned action was taken i.e. till 2007, a vested and legal right had accrued to her and if it was to be withdrawn that due process of law was required to be followed. This having not been done the entire action is unsustainable. This having not been done the entire action is unsustainable. In view of the aforesaid we see no reason to interfere into the matter and finding no merit in the appeal filed by the State Government warranting reconsideration, the same is dismissed.