Back
2015 Supreme(Manipur) 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
N.Kotiswar Singh, J.
B. Malsawma - Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur and Ors. - Resopndent
WP(C) No. 23 of 2014
Decided On : 22-01-2015
For the Petitioner:Binarani, Advocate.
For the Respondents: A. Modhuchandra, GA.
Withholding pensionary benefits based on mere allegations is impermissible unless specific provisions of the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 are invoked. Authorities are obligated to investigate allegations and take appropriate actions against those found responsible.
Headnote:
PENSIONARY BENEFITS - Delay in Release - Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 8, Rule 9
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Head Clerk, filed a writ petition seeking release of pensionary and retiral benefits. The delay in release was attributed to allegations of misappropriation of Rs. 10 lakhs against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the delay in releasing pensionary benefits was due to the non-accountability of Rs. 10 lakhs, but noted that there was no finding against the petitioner regarding his involvement in the misappropriation. The court directed the authorities to initiate appropriate action against those responsible, including the petitioner, if prima facie materials were available.
Issues: Delay in release of pensionary benefits, Allegations of misappropriation, Applicability of Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972
Ratio Decidendi: Withholding payment of pensionary benefits based on mere allegations is not permissible under the Rules unless provisions of Rule 8 or 9 of the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 are invoked. Authorities are obligated to investigate allegations and take appropriate actions against those found responsible.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the authorities to initiate appropriate action against those responsible, including the petitioner, if prima facie materials were available. The court also directed the Chief Secretary, State of Manipur, to ensure compliance with the order.
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
1. Heard Ms. Binarani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Modhuchandra, learned GA for the respondents.
2. The writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents for release of the pensionary and other retiral benefits accrued to the petitioner upon his retirement.
3. According to the petitioner, he was earlier serving as a Head Clerk in the Department of Minorities, OBCs and SCs (MOBC), Government of Manipur and retired from service w.e.f. 29.2.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that even though the petitioner had retired from service w.e.f. 29.2.2012, till date, he has not received any retiral benefit including pension. The petitioner contends that denial of such retiral benefits after having rendered service without any blemish is illegal and impermissible. Accordingly, after having approached the authorities by submitting representation dated 16.11.2013 of which there was no positive result, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court for an appropriate direction for release of the retiral and pensionary benefits.
5. According to the petitioner, the reason for delay in denial of the pensionary benefits could be attributed to certain allegations made against the petitioner as mentioned in the letter dated 10.12.2013 of the Directorate of MOBC & SC, which was written in response to the representation of the petitioner dated 16.11.2013. In the said letter dated 10.12.2013 it has been mentioned that a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, which was found to be missing from the department account has been shown to have been paid to one M. Damu in addition to Rs. 4,800/- as shown in the money receipt, on which the petitioner allegedly wrote "paid by me". It has been stated that the said M. Damu Singh, however, denied receipt of the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, though he admitted to have received only Rs. 4,800/- which was due to him. It has been also stated that because of the said controversy, the Director, requested the petitioner to clarify as to whether he had paid only a sum of Rs. 4,800/- or Rs. 10 lakhs in addition as mentioned in the money receipt. It has been also mentioned in the said letter of the Directorate that the petitioner has refused to clarify the same till date and it is suspected that the petitioner was involved in the misappropriation of money along with others because of which the pensionary benefits had been withheld for the time being and asked the petitioner to cooperate in the inquiry made by the department.
6. Ms. Binarani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid charge of misappropriation of Rs. 10 lakhs by the petitioner is a mere allegation and in fact the inquiry conducted by the department has been closed as evident from the order dated 11.4.2014 (Annexure-A/6 to the rejoinder affidavit) and accordingly submits that there is no reason why the retiral and pensionary benefits should not be released to the petitioner.
7. Mr. Modhuchandra, learned GA appearing for the State, relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents has submitted that in the course of verification it has been found that an amount for payment of Rs. 8,75,645/- was due to be paid to a contractor for supply of certain materials but it was found that no such money was available with the department. The officials of the MOBC, accordingly, contacted the petitioner who was working as the Head Clerk at the relevant time to find out how the said amount had been missing from the Department's account because of which the payment could not be made to the supplier. It has been stated that in that context, the petitioner had handed over to the Department a photostat copy of the receipt signed by one M. Damu, showing receipt of Rs. 10 lakhs in addition to Rs. 4,800/-. However, on examination of the receipt it was found that the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was apparently added later on in the receipt for the amount of
