Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 629 (MP)

Durga Shankar Dube v. State of M. P.

2016-07-28

VIVEK RUSIA

body2016
ORDER 1. Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of peon with effect from 1.7.1972 for a period of two years. The said appointment was made by way of recommendations and the decisions taken by the Municipal Council, Badwah, vide resolution dated 28.5.1973. The said appointment was for a period of two years probation. Thereafter, the petitioner was confirmed on the said post on 12.8.1981 which is reflected from the entries in the service book of the petitioner which is filed as Annexure P-2. During the service he was promoted and thereafter he was retired from the post with effect from 31.12.2008 after attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement the petitioner was granted pension @ Rs.4,419/- per month and then suddenly the pension was stopped from the month of February 2010. On necessary enquiry, it was found that for the recovery of amount of Rs.13,257/-, the petitioner was not paid the pension for the period that is from February 2010 to April 2010. The petitioner has submitted representation for the release of his pension. Vide letter dated 29.7.2010, the respondents has treated the services of the petitioner for releasing the pension with effect from 3.10.1978. Being aggrieved by the recovery of the pension, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 2. That, in reply learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of peon on 1.7.1972 but he was confirmed on 3.10.1978, therefore, his services are liable to be counted for the purposes of releasing the pension from the year 1978 and hence the respondents has rightly recovered the excess amount made to the petitioner of Rs.13,257/-. 3. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties. 4. That, the petitioner was initially appointed with effect from 1.7.1972 for two years probation and after successfully completing his probation period he was confirmed on the said post on 1978, therefore, he is entitled for counting his total period of service from the date of initial appointment. 5. Under rule 12 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, the qualifying services has been defined. Rule 12 is reproduced herein below : Rule 12. 5. Under rule 12 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, the qualifying services has been defined. Rule 12 is reproduced herein below : Rule 12. Commencement of Qualifying service.-(1) Except for compensation gratuity, a Government servant's service does not qualifying till he has completed 18 years of age, provided that nothing contained in this clause shall apply in the case of persons who were in service on the date of commencement of these rules and in whose case a lower age limit has been prescribed. 6. That, according to the petitioner services, his services are liable to be counted from the initial commencement of his service. The qualifying services shall be the services from the initial commencement of his services till his retirement. Rule 14 is reproduced herein below: Rule-14 Counting of service on probation.- Service on probation against a post shall qualify. 7. Therefore, in view of the above provisions, the petitioner's services are liable to be counted from the date of his initial appointment that is from 1.7.1972 for the purpose of payment of pension with arrears. Therefore, the impugned order dated 29.7.2010 is set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of recovery i.e. 13,257/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of recovery till payment. It is made clear that the respondents should re-assess the pension from the initial appointment of the petitioner that is from 1.7.1972 and pay the pension along with arrears to the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid facts, the present petition is disposed of. Ranjit Sen for petitioner; Rohit Kumar Mangal, Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2, 3 & 5/State; Jitendra Verma for respondent No.4.