Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 480
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Devesh Kumar Singh Parihar and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 5550-2010 and 3225-2011
Decided On : 21-04-2015
For the Petitioner:Rohit Jagwani, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Nidhi Patankar, Govt. Advocate.
Headnote:
Pension Rules - Recovery and adjustment of Government dues - Rule 65 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976; Rule 65 of the Pension Rules - The court discussed the application of Rule 9 and Rule 65 of the Pension Rules in the context of withholding pension and releasing only 90 per cent pension to the petitioners. The court emphasized the interpretation of 'all Government dues' under Rule 65(1) and the scope of recovery and adjustment of Government dues under Rule 65(2). The judgment of the court was influenced by the legal provisions and their interpretations under Rule 65, which led to the direction for release of remaining pension and refund of improperly withheld gratuity amount.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were retired Sub-Engineers, sought the release of their retiral dues including pension, gratuity, and other benefits. The respondents had only released 90 per cent pension to the petitioners, withholding the remaining amount due to outstanding Government dues. The petitioners challenged this action, contending that the withholding of pension was contrary to the Pension Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the action of the respondents in withholding the pension and releasing only 90 per cent pension was without authority of law. It directed the respondents to release the remaining pension to the petitioners and refund the improperly withheld gratuity amount. The court also directed the respondents to follow the procedure for adjustment as directed in a previous judgment.
Issues: The main issue was the withholding of pension and gratuity by the respondents based on outstanding Government dues, and the interpretation and application of Rule 65 of the Pension Rules in this context.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of Rule 65 of the Pension Rules, emphasizing the requirement for clearing all Government dues before retirement, the scope of recovery and adjustment of Government dues, and the distinction between pension and gratuity under the Rules.
Final Decision: The petitions were partly allowed, and the court directed the respondents to release the remaining pension to the petitioners, refund the improperly withheld gratuity amount, and follow the procedure for adjustment as directed in a previous judgment.
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. Learned counsel for the parties contended that the matters involve similar question of facts and law and, therefore, may be heard analogously. Accordingly, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.
Writ Petition No. 5550/2010
2. The petitioner was working as Sub-Engineer in the respondent- department. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.2.2008. The petitioner prayed for releasing the retiral dues including pension, gratuity and other benefits. It is contended that the respondents have only released 90 per cent pension to the petitioner. Rest of the amount was not released by contending that an amount of Rs. 18,71,421/- is due on the petitioner and unless that amount is adjusted, full benefits cannot be extended.
3. Criticizing this order, Shri Rohit Jagwani contended that the action of the respondents is contrary to rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, "Pension Rules"). He further submits that the circular dated 4.6.2009 (Annexure P/9) shows that the PWD Department has disapproved the practice of the department in not releasing the retiral dues on the ground of alleged adjustment. It is further contended that the department found that one V.K. Mishra has not committed any error and, therefore, amount in relation to said Shri Mishra can be adjusted. The petitioner being similarly situated is entitled for same benefits. It is further contended that the period for which adjustment is sought for is four years prior to the retirement of the petitioner. Thus, no adjustment or recovery can be made in this regard. He submits that pension can be stopped only in consonance with rules 8 and 9 of the Pension Rules.
Writ Petition No. 3225/2011
4. This petitioner was also working as Sub-Engineer. He retired on 30.6.2008. In his case, an amount of Rs. 5,74,755/- is shown as outstanding and he was directed to adjust this amount. This order is criticized on same ground which is assailed in the above matter. The reliance is placed on note sheet (Annexure P/11) to contend that the amount outstanding against the petitioner is liable to be adjusted. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6583/2006 (Annexure O/8).
In support of aforesaid contentions, Shri Jagwani relied on following judgments:-
(1) AIR 2013 SC 3383 (State of Jharkhand & ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another).
(2) (2008) 3 SCC 44 (S.K.Dua vs. State of Haryana & another).
(3) 2013 (4) MPLJ 35 (Bhaskar Ramchandra Joshi vs. State of MP).
(4) 2013 (4) MPLJ 39 (Bhavuti vs. Alam (deceased) through L.Rs. & another.
(5) 2013 (2) MPLJ 696 (Nand Kishore Shrivastava vs. State of MP).
(6) 2013 (2) MPLJ 699 (Yashraj Datta (dead) through LR Kamlabai vs. Bherulal.
(7) 2010 (3) MPHT 172 (D.D. Jalota vs. State of MP & others).
(8) Writ Petition No. 4540(2009 (Shyam Babu Sharma vs. State of MP).
5. Per Contra, Smt. Patankar supported the action of the respondents and contended that unless the amount is adjusted, petitioners are not entitled to get pension. She drew the attention of this Court on various paragraphs of the return filed.
6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration on rival contentions and perused the record.
7. Petitioners have heavily relied on rule 9 of the Pension Rules. It is contended that the aforesaid action could have been taken only for a period which is within four years from the date of retirement. For this, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Nand Kishore Shrivastava (supra). A careful scrutiny of facts in these cases will make it clear that there is no allegation against the petitioner about any misconduct. Thus, rule 9 has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. In para 7 of the judgment of Nand Kishore Shrivastava (supra), this Court opined that the action which was contemplated against the petitioner and ultimately resulted in passing the impugned order brings the action within the purview of rule 9 of the said r
