Alok Shukla vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Petitioner has filed application being I.A.No.3377/18 for interim relief seeking finalization and restoration of full pension alongwith payment of

arrears due to him since the date of his voluntary retirement i.e., 31/8/2009 from the post of Assistant Engineer in PHE Department.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner stood voluntarily retired from the post of Assistant Engineer on 31/8/2009. On account of

the departmental proceedings being pending since 1996, the petitioner's regular pension was not sanctioned and he was paid provisional pension to the

tune of Rs. 3025/- which on account of revision of pension is now being paid @ Rs. 7400/- per month.

The petitioner who appears in person contends that his contemporaries in the cadre of Assistant Engineers who have retired alongwith him are

receiving pension @ Rs. 50,000/- per month but the petitioner is somehow surviving with a meagre sum of Rs. 7500/- per month. The petitioner

further informs that he has not received a single penny towards gratuity.

It is not disputed that the departmental proceedings have come to an end by order dated 17/1/2018 where the charges have been dropped without

inflicting any penalty, under Rule 9 of the M.P. (Civil Services) Pension Rules, 1976 (for brevity 1976 Rules) by the State.

The above said fact situation reveals a startling and shocking state of affairs where the mandatory Rules of the M.P. (Civil Services) Pension

Rules, 1976 have been given a complete go bye. The said rules particularly Rule 64 provides that a govt. servant referred to in Rule 9(4), meaning

thereby, a govt. servant who at the time of retirement is facing departmental proceedings, shall be authorized payment of provisional pension not

exceeding the maximum pension and 50% of the gratuity.

5.1 From the above it is evident that the petitioner who was facing departmental proceedings when he stood retired on 31/8/2009, ought to have been

paid the provisional pension, not exceeding the maximum pension and not exceeding 50% of the gratuity. Instead, the petitioner received pension @

Rs. 3025/-, which was not even 1/4th of the full pension.

5.2 As regards gratuity as informed by the petitioner, not even a single penny has been paid to the petitioner till date.

5.3 Reference to Rule 9(4) of the 1976 Rules is relevant to emphasize the treatment meted out to the petitioner. The said rule is reproduced below for

ready reference and convenience:-

(4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental

or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension and death-cum-

retirement gratuity as provided in Rule 64, as the case may be, shall be sanctioned :

Provided that where pension has already been finally sanctioned to a Government servant prior to institution of departmental proceedings, the

Governor may, by order in writing, withhold, with effect from the date of institution of such departmental proceedings fifty per cent of the pension so

sanctioned subject, however, that the pension payable after such withholding is not reduced to less than the minimum pension as determined by the

Government from time to time :

Provided further that where departmental proceedings have been instituted prior to the 25th October, 1978, the first proviso shall have effect as if for

the words ""with effect from the date of institution of such proceedings"" the words ""with effect from a date not later than thirty days from the date

aforementioned"", had been substituted :

Provided also that-

(a) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of one year from the date of institution thereof, fifty per cent of the pension

withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of one year;

(b) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of two years from the date of institution the entire amount of pension so

withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of two years; and

(c) If in the departmental proceedings final order is passed to withhold or withdraw the pension or any recovery is ordered, the order shall be deemed

to take effect from the date of the institution of departmental proceedings and the amount-of, pension since withheld shall be adjusted in terms of the

final order subject to the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 43.

5.4 A bare perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision makes it clear that if a govt. servant on his retirement is under cloud of pending departmental

proceedings which are not completed within one year from the date of its institution then 50% of the pension withheld shall stand restored on the

expiry of the aforesaid period of one year. The rule further provides that if departmental proceedings are not completed within two years of it's

institution then the entire amount of pension so withheld shall stand restored on expiry of two years.

5.5 In the case of the petitioner institution of departmental proceedings took place in 1996 which culminated into exoneration of the petitioner in

January, 2018 but the pension of the petitioner does not seem to have been enhanced.

In view of the above, this court is of the considered prima facie view that the case for grant of interim relief is made out.

The only question that remains for consideration is as to what extent the pension should be restored ?.

7.1 It is not in dispute that the petitioner is no more under cloud of departmental proceedings as he has been exonerated by the order dated 17/1/2018

vide P/1. Even otherwise, the pension could not have been withheld after expiry of two years from the date of institution (date of issuance of charge-

sheet) of departmental proceedings.

7.2  Third proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 uses the expression “ within one/two years from the date of institution thereof †in context of

departmental proceedings which had commenced prior to the date of retirement. Therefore Rule Making Authority moved on the assumption that

these proceedings would be concluded in expeditious manner and would not be kept pending. The fact situation attending the present case is quite

alarming. The departmental proceedings were kept pending for nearly 22 years since it's institution and for nearly 8-9 years after retirement of the

petitioner on 31/8/2009. This kind of situation was never contemplated or even imagined by the rule making Authority while framing Rule 9.

7.3 The scheme of the pension rules is founded upon the basic assumption that a departmental proceeding pending at the time of retirement would be

concluded expeditiously and preferably with in a period of one/two years beyond which the govt. would incur the obligation of payment of half/full

pension as per clause (a) & (b) of second proviso to Rule 9(4) of the 1976 Rules.

7.4 In view of the above, this court allows I.A.No.3377/18 and directs the State and it's functionaries to forthwith release full pension to the petitioner

from today if there is no otherwise legal impediment.

7.5 The question of arrears due to the petitioner since his retirement would be decided at the time of final hearing.

List the case in the week commencing 9th July, 2018.