Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 74 (MAN)

Ngathem Sudhir Singh v. State of Manipur

2022-05-11

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. W.P. (C) No.541 of 2021 has been filed by the seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take immediate necessary steps for payment of petitioner's pension and other retiral benefits within a time frame and also to direct the second respondent to immediately issue the retirement order of the petitioner. 2. W.P.(C) No.1 of 2022 has been filed to direct the respondents to give the petitioner interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of petitioner's retiral/terminal benefits, including retirement gratuity for the period from the due date till the date of actual payment and to quash the second sentence appeared at paragraph 6 of the order dated 22.12.2021. 3. Since the issue involved in both the petitions is one and the same, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 4. Heard Mr. Ng. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs. Ch. Sundari, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent State and Mr. I. Somorjit, learned junior counsel to Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned Sr. PCCG for the respondent Accountant General. 5. Mr. Ng. Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of W.P.(C) No.541 of 2021, on 22.12.2021, the Joint Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur issued an order allowing the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 28.2.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, the only prayer now pending consideration in W.P.(C) No.541 of 2021 is payment of petitioner's pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits. 6. Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent State also submitted that the retirement order in respect of the petitioner was issued on 22.12.2021 with effect from 28.2.2021 pursuant to the report of the Director of Education (S), Manipur. 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the prayer for issuance of the retirement order was satisfied by issuance of the order dated 22.12.2021 allowing the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 28.2.2021. 8. Insofar as the prayer for payment of petitioner's pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not occupy any Government accommodation nor was there any outstanding dues whatsoever against him and there is also no departmental enquiry pending against him. 8. Insofar as the prayer for payment of petitioner's pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not occupy any Government accommodation nor was there any outstanding dues whatsoever against him and there is also no departmental enquiry pending against him. However, the respondents have not taken steps to settle the pension and other retiral benefits till now quite arbitrarily. He would submit that already more than a year elapsed from his date of retirement, but not a single rupee of his monetary/retiral benefits like pension, gratuity, leave encashment, GPF, Group Insurance etc. have been given to the petitioner. The petitioner is the head and also the only earning member of his family which consists of five members and his monthly salary is the only source of income. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been compelled literally to become a beggar running from pillar to post for borrowing money from his relatives and friends for maintaining his family, especially during hard times of Covid-19 pandemic and the petitioner is put to very precarious condition. 10. The learned counsel urged that it is a matter of great pity and disgrace that the petitioner after rendering service for about 33 years as a teacher is compelled to live in penury. The Hon'ble Apex Court time and again held that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by Government, but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of interest. In this case, admittedly, there is a delay in disbursement of pensionary and other monetary benefits and therefore, this Court while directing the respondents to disburse the entitled retirement benefits may order interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delay. 11. In this case, admittedly, there is a delay in disbursement of pensionary and other monetary benefits and therefore, this Court while directing the respondents to disburse the entitled retirement benefits may order interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delay. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that though in the report dated 18.11.2021 the Director of Education (S) stated that there is no disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner and ordered that the entitled retirement benefit shall be released as and when the enquiry/charges, if any levelled against the petitioner has been dropped, a response in this regard is yet to be received from the authorities of the Council of Higher Secondary School and therefore, there is no wilful intention of the respondent State for non-releasing of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. He would submit the respondent State will take necessary steps for settlement/release of pension/retirement benefits as and when the charges/enquiry, if any levelled against the petitioner has been dropped. 12. Mr. Salam Samarjeet, learned senior PCGC for the respondent Accountant General submitted that the administrative authority and power vest with the State Government authorities alone and the fourth respondent has no power to implement the decisions that are not in consonance with rules, regulations and Government instructions. He would submit that only after the State Government issues a specific order in compliance of the Court's order, either relaxing the rules/instructions, the Principal Accountant General/Accountant General can implement such decision/order. Therefore, the primary responsibility in implementing a Court's order that requires relaxation of rules rests with the State Government and the fourth respondent only implements the decisions taken by the State Government authorities in various issues relating to maintenance of GPF, pension and gazetted entitlement. In fact, the pension papers are yet to be received by the fourth respondent under Rule 54(6) of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1977. As such, there is no action pending on the part of the fourth respondent. 13. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 14. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer, Higher Secondary School, Government of Manipur in the year 1988. As such, there is no action pending on the part of the fourth respondent. 13. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 14. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer, Higher Secondary School, Government of Manipur in the year 1988. After rendering service for about 30 years as Lecturer and Vice Principal of Higher Secondary School, he was promoted to the post of Principal, Higher Secondary School in the year 2018 and he was posted as Principal at Vungzagen Higher Secondary School, Churachandpur District. 15. It appears that an enquiry committee was constituted by the Government on 19.2.2020 thereby recommending ten schools responsible for leakage of Class-XI examination, 2020 question papers. The Vungzagen Higher Secondary School was included in the said list, wherein the petitioner was the Principal. Initially, the petitioner was not issued with the retirement order, however, pending W.P.(C) No.541 of 2021, the Government issued an order dated 22.12.2021 allowing the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 28.2.2021 based on the report of the Director of Education (S). 16. The Director of Education(S), Manipur called for a report that any disciplinary proceedings was pending against the petitioner from the Council of Higher Secondary Education and also requested them to do the needful of the additional expenditure cost for such leakage from the officials of Vungzagen Higher Secondary School. As such, the retirement order in respect of the petitioner was not issued by the Government at the relevant point of time. 17. On a perusal of affidavit-in-opposition, it is seen that the Director of Education(S), Manipur submitted a report to the Government on 18.11.2021, wherein it has been stated that there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. However, it has been ordered that the entitled retirement benefits shall be released as and when the enquiry/charges, if any levelled against the petitioner has been dropped. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that on 18.1.2022, the Council of Higher Secondary Education has been requested to submit the status of enquiry/charges against the petitioner, if any. However, no response has been received from the authorities of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur. 18. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that on 18.1.2022, the Council of Higher Secondary Education has been requested to submit the status of enquiry/charges against the petitioner, if any. However, no response has been received from the authorities of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur. 18. On a further perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated that the State Government will take necessary steps for settlement/releasing of pension/retirement benefits as and when the charges/enquiry, if any levelled against the petitioner has been dropped. It is also stated that pursuant to the interim order dated 18.1.2022, the respondents are taking steps for payment of provisional pension and provisional gratuity to the petitioner. 19. At this juncture, it is apposite to mention that while issuing the order for retirement dated 22.12.2021, the Joint Secretary, Education(S) has stated as under: '5. Whereas the Director of Education(S), Manipur has been requested to submit a report, if any disciplinary proceedings is pending against the retiring employee Shri.Ng.Sudhir Singh, Principal, Vungzagen Higher Secondary School. In response, Director of Education(S), Manipur vide letter No.5/12/2019- ED(AD/H)Pt dated 18.11.2021 has stated that there is no disciplinary proceedings taken against Shri Ng. Sudhir Singh (EIN-061892), Principal, Vungzagen Higher Secondary School.' 20. When the Director of Education(S), Manipur himself stated that there is no disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner, it is highly unreasonable on the part of the respondent authorities to state that the entitled retirement benefits shall be released as and when the enquiry/charges, if any levelled against the petitioner. 21. As is seen from the pleadings, the petitioner submitted repeated representations were made requesting the respondent authorities to pay the entitled retirement benefits. Since the respondent authorities failed to consider the claim of the petitioner, he filed W.P.(C) No.541 of 2021 praying for direction on the respondents to immediately take steps for payment of his pension and other retiral benefits along with a prayer for issuance of the retirement order. As stated supra, pending W.P.(C) No.541 of 2021, retirement order was issued on 22.12.2021. Aggrieved by the impugned portion of the order dated 22.12.2021, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.1 of 2022, wherein he prayed not only for setting aside the impugned portion of the order, but also sought interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of the petitioner's retiral/terminal benefits etc. 22. Aggrieved by the impugned portion of the order dated 22.12.2021, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.1 of 2022, wherein he prayed not only for setting aside the impugned portion of the order, but also sought interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of the petitioner's retiral/terminal benefits etc. 22. Since the Director of Education(S), Manipur in his report stated that there is no disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner, retaining of the entitled retiral benefits due to the petitioner is unacceptable and the respondent authorities are duty bound to release the entitled retiral/service benefits to the petitioner. 23. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though rules provide for starting preparation of pension papers for the petitioner two years prior to his due date of retirement, nothing tangible has been done by the respondent till date merit consideration. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by Government, but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously. 25. It is now trite that the pension and other retiral benefits are no more a bounty to be distributed by the Government. It has become a right in the hands of the Government servants. If there is a culpable delay in making availability of pension and other retiral benefits that itself would invite heavy interest. In the present case, though no disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner, the respondent authorities are in utter negligence in settling the retiral and pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 26. It is pertinent to note that it is a matter of tragedy to a retired person who is yet to get his legitimate pension and gratuity after his retirement due to apathy and nonchalant attitude of the respondent authorities. A retired Government employee seems to be neglected and shabbily treated by the respondent State who does not pay the retirement benefit in time and he is compelled to run from pillar to post with a begging bowl. Despite the interim order of this Court dated 18.1.2022, nothing on record to show that the respondents released the provisional pension and other retiral benefits due payable to the petitioner. 27. Despite the interim order of this Court dated 18.1.2022, nothing on record to show that the respondents released the provisional pension and other retiral benefits due payable to the petitioner. 27. As stated supra, since there is no disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner as of now for the alleged leakage of Class-XI examination 2020 question papers, the Joint Secretary, Education(S), while issuing the order dated 22.12.2021 ought not to have stated that the entitled retirement benefits shall be released as and when the enquiry/charges, if any levelled against the petitioner. The aforesaid sentence appeared in paragraph 6 of the order dated 22.12.2021 needs to be set aside. 28. In the facts and circumstances stated above, this is a fit case to direct the respondents to finalise the pension paper in respect of the petitioner within a time bound manner and if the pension and other retiral benefits are not paid within the stipulated time, it shall carry a reasonable interest from the date of payment is due till the payment is made. 29. In the result, (i) W.P.(C) No.541 of 2021 is partly allowed. (ii) Since pending W.P.(C) No.541 of 2021 the petitioner was allowed to retire from service vide order dated 22.12.2021, the prayer for issuance of the retirement order has become infructuous. (iii) W.P.(C) No.1 of 2022 is allowed (iv) The second sentence appeared in paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 of the Joint Secretary(S), Government of Manipur is set aside. (v) The respondent authorities are directed to finalise the pension paper of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vi) If the pension and other retiral benefits are not paid within the stipulated period of four weeks, it shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of payment is due till the payment is made. (vii) No costs.