The provisions of Rule 64 (1) (ga) of the MP Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, which prohibit the payment of gratuity till the conclusion of departmental proceedings, do not defer the date on which the amount towards death-cum-retirement gratuity falls due.

S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior, whereunder allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, the present petitioners had been directed to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the withheld amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity for the period from the date of retirement of the said respondent till the actual payment of the said amount, which was required to be paid within a period of three months from the date of the order, they have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

2. We have heard the learned Government Advocate representing the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 1, who has put in appearance in the case at this stage, and have carefully perused the record.

3. The facts in brief, shorn of the details and necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. Disciplinary Proceedings against the respondent No. 1 were initiated while he was holding the post of Sahayak Sanchalak, Sthaniya Nidhi Sampariksha, Ujjain, with the service of charge-sheet upon him on 12-3-1996. The charges levelled against him were in regard to irregularities in certifying the fixation of the salary in the higher time scale of pay granted to 31 lower division clerks employed in the Vikram Vishvavidyalaya. He submitted his explanation to the charges levelled against him in 29-3-1996 denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report on 4-8-1997 holding that none of the charges levelled against the respondent No. 1 had been proved. The State Government accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer exonerated him from the charges and terminated the disciplinary proceedings vide the order dated 25-10-1997.

4. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings the contesting respondent attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31-12-1996. Having submitted his explanation to the charges levelled against him on 29-3-1996, he had moved an application on 6-8-1996 referring to the various Government orders especially the order dated 27-1-1982 whereunder it had been directed that while proceeding with the disciplinary inquiry, taking care of the date of superannuation, the final decision should be given much before that and such disciplinary proceedings should be conducted on priority basis fixing dates for day to day hearing.

5. The contesting respondent No. 1 had requested that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him be decided before his attaining the age of superannuation. The Up-Sanchalak, Sthaniya Nidhi Sampariksha, Ujjain, sent a letter dated 14-8-1996 to the State Government for issuing suitable direction for taking the decision in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the answering respondent much before his attaining the age of superannuation.

6. In spite of the aforesaid request the disciplinary proceedings were not expedited and no endeavour was made so that they terminated before the date on which the contesting respondent was going to attain the age of superannuation i.e. 31 -12-1996 and were concluded with the order of his exoneration from the charges levelled against him much after the date of superannuation vide the order passed by the State Government dated 20-10-1997.

7. Even after his exoneration from the charges levelled against him, the amount due to him towards death-cum-retirement gratuity, which ought to have been paid to him on his retirement, was paid to him on 5-3-1998.

8. The contesting respondent thereafter moved an application on 29-4-1998 requesting that he may be paid interest calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs. 86,139.00, which had been paid to him towards death-cum-retirement gratuity. The aforesaid application was, however, rejected vide