Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu, J.
Bhagwan Das Pandey v. State of M. P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 10245 of 2018 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 31.10.2022
(1) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (M. P.) -- Rr. 64 and 9 (4) -- applicability of R. 64 -- criminal proceedings initiated and concluded prior to retirement -- disciplinary proceedings ended prior to retirement -- held -- Pension Rules do not contemplate and therefore do not permit sanction of provisional pension in these facts and circumstances -- R. 9 (4) merely contemplates departmental proceedings -- does not refer to judicial proceedings -- present case does not fall within ambit of R. 9 (2) (a) -- cannot fall under R. 9 (4) as neither departmental nor judicial proceedings were instituted after superannuation of petitioner -- R. 64 not attracted -- competent authority had no jurisdiction to invoke R. 64 for merely granting provisional pension instead of full pension -- respondents directed to release withheld pension with benefit of revision of pension if any, other retiral benefits if withheld, and interest @ 10% per annum on arrears of pension -- cost of litigation Rs. 10,000/- granted. 2002 (5) MPHT 11 and Writ Appeal No. 268 of 2019 decided on 2.4.2019 (Indore) referred to. [Paras 6.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.8 to 8.1 & 10
(2) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (M. P.) -- Rr. 64 and 9 (4) -- scope of R. 64 -- expression “in respect of government servants referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 9” -- obviously circumscribes power of competent authority to invoke R. 64 for grant of provisional pension only and only in such cases of government servants which are referred to in R. 9 (4). [Para 7.1
(3) Pension -- not a bounty but precious right to livelihood -- can be withheld, stopped or withdrawn only within four corners of enabling statutory provision -- in absence of any enabling statutory provision for withholding/stopping/withdrawing pension, State or its functionaries not empowered to do so. [Para 8.2
¼1½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 1976 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-64 rFkk 9 ¼4½ && fu-64 dk ykxw gksuk && nkafMd dk;Zokgh lsokfuo`fÙk ds iwoZ vkjaHk rFkk lekIr && vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh lsokfuo`fÙk ds iwoZ lekIr && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && isU'ku fu;eksa esa bu rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa varfje isU'ku dh eatwjh vuq/;kr ugha blfy, vuqKkr ugha && fu- 9¼4½ esa ek= foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh vuq/;kr && U;kf;d dk;Zokgh fufnZ"V ugha && orZeku ekeyk fu-9¼2½ ¼d½ dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrk && fu- 9 ¼4½ ds v/khu ugha vk ldrk D;ksafd u rks foHkkxh; vkSj u U;kf;d dk;Zokgh gh ;kph dh vf/kokf"kZrk ds i'pkr~ lafLFkr gqbZ && fu- 64 vkÑ"V ugha && l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks iw.kZ isU'ku ds LFkku ij varfje isU'ku iznku djus ek= ds fy, fu- 64 dk vkJ; ysus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha Fkh && izR;FkhZx.k dks] ;fn isU'ku dk iqujh{k.k gqvk rks mlds Qk;ns] izR;kâr fd, x, gksa rks vU; lsokfuo`fÙk Qk;ns] rFkk isU'ku ds cdk;k ij @10 izfr'kr izfro"kZ dh nj ls C;kt lfgr izR;kâr isU'ku tkjh djus dk funs'k && eqdnek O;; #- 10]000@& iznÙkA 2002¼5½ ,e ih ,p Vh 11 rFkk fjV vihy Ø- 268 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 2-4-2019 ¼bankSj½ fufnZ"VA
¼iSjk 6-1] 7-3] 7-8 ls 8-1 ,oa 10
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 1976 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-64 rFkk 9 ¼4½ && fu-64 dh O;kfIr && vfHkO;fDr ßfu;e 9 ds mifu;e ¼4½ esa fufnZ"V 'kkldh; lsod ds laca/k esaß && Li"Vr% varfje isU'ku iznku djus ds fy, fu- 64 dk vkJ; ysus dh l{ke izkf/kdkjh dh 'kfDr dks dsoy ek= mu 'kkldh; lsodksa ds ekeys rd lhfer djrh gS tks fu-9 ¼4½ esa fufnZ"V gSA ¼iSjk 7-1
¼3½ isU'ku && vf/knku ugha] vfirq vkthfodk dk vewY; vf/kdkj && lkeF;Zdkjh dkuwuh mica/k dh lhek ds Hkhrj gh izR;kâr] jksdh vFkok okil yh tk ldrh gS && isU'ku izR;kâr djus@jksdus@okil ysus ds fy, lkeF;Zdkjh dkuwuh mica/k ds vHkko esa jkT; ;k mlds ÑR;dkjh ,slk djus ds fy, l'kDr ughaA ¼iSjk 8-2
ORDER
1. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a person who has attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.2011 from the post of Accountant under the Department of Tribal Welfare, prays for following reliefs :
“(i) To issue a writ in the nature of “Mandamus” command the respondents to release full Pension, Gratuity, GIS/FBF, encashment of leave and arrears of 6th Pay Commission, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of entitlement till it is actually paid, which have withheld without authority of law.
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of “Mandamus” command the respondent No.8 to release the Pension Payment Order w.e.f. 1.8.2011 of the petitioner’s and pay the arrears of pension with interest @ 12% per annum.
(iii) To declare that after acquittal of the petitioner’s recorded in Special Criminal Case No.7/2005 by judgment dated 23.2.2010, the action of the respondents the suspension order dated 15.4.2005 did not revoked as well as withholding pension whereas GPF, the gratuity, GIS/FBF, encashment of leave and arrears of 6th Pay Commission not disburse are illegal and arbitrary which has unnecessarily harass to the low paid employee.
(iv) To direct the respondents to regularize the period of suspension w.e.f. 15.4.2005 to 31.7.2011 under FR-54(B) and pay the salary with Dearness Allowances.
(v) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus Command the Resp. No.9 to recalculate te GPF amount after adjusted missing credits from his account no.CP/NMP/32800 with statutory interest.
(vi) To grant any other writ/direction/relief which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit and proper may also be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case, including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also final disposal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court rendered in 2002 (5) MPHT 11 (Ram Ratan Tiwari v. State of M.P. and others) and subsequent decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 2.4.2019 in WA No.268/2019 at Indore Bench and two more Single Bench decisions, all of which were decided in favour of the petitioners therein.
3.1 Bare perusal of Division Bench judgment in the case of Ram Ratan Tiwari (supra), and all the subsequent decisions as mentioned above have come to a conclusion in favour of the employees concerned therein to which this Court has no reason to differ. However, this Court would like to assign additional reasons though for coming to the same conclusion in favour of petitioner.
3.2 Before adverting the process of adjudication, it would be appropriate to refer to undisputed factual matrix attending the instant case in a chronological manner as follows :
| Dates | Events |
| 15.4.2005 | The petitioner is placed under suspension due to filing of charge-sheet on 23.3.2005 in respect of Crime No.40/1999 in connection with offences punishable u/S 13(1)(B) read with section 13(2) of Protection of Corruption Act and section 409 and 468 of IPC. |
| 23.2.2010 | Petitioner stands acquitted in Special Case No.7/2005 of all the charge vide Annexure P/5. |
| 3.7.2010 | The Departmental Enquiry initiated by charge-sheet dated 16.1.2003 ends in imposing miner penalty of withholding of one increment non-cumulatively vide Annexure P/8. |
| 2011 | The prosecution filed appeal before the High Court against acquittal vide Criminal Appeal No.481/2011 (pending till date) |
| 31.7.2011 | Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation and is granted provisional pending to the tune of 75% of full pension. |
| 8.12.2011 | The provisional pension is enhanced to 90%. |
| 28.7.2012 | The State declines to further enhance the provisional pension due to pendency of Cr |
Pension is a property right that cannot be withheld without lawful authority; withholding based on proceedings initiated post-retirement is unlawful, and interest must be paid for delays in disbursem....
Pension benefits cannot be revoked without due process, and unrelated criminal convictions do not justify cessation of pension.
Provisional pension cannot be granted to public servants convicted of serious crimes, as entitlement is contingent on the stay of conviction during pending appeals.
The decision to withhold a pension under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule should be based on future conduct, and if based on past conduct, Rule 43(b) should be invoked instead.
In the absence of specific provisions empowering the employer to withhold the pension of an employee, the same cannot be withheld, especially after the employee has been acquitted from criminal charg....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
