The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of grant of pension should not be frustrated, and specific provisions in the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules govern the preparation and payment of pension, including the provision for granting provisional pension in case of departmental or judicial proceedings.

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. 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 prep