Ram Bai Shukla vs State of M.P. and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—Petitioner is a widowed lady and claims grant of pension on the ground that her husband Late Satyanarayan Shukla was granted voluntary retirement under Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 and even though more than 2 years have passed, the pensionary claims were not granted. Records indicate that Shri Satyanarayan Shukla was working in the office of Executive Engineer, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Division No. 2, Deolond, District Shahdol, as a Peon. It seems that he submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 42 of the Pension Rules and the same was accepted vide Annexure P-1. However, when after death of the husband and when family pension was not granted, this writ petition have been filed.

Records indicate that Shri Satyanarayan Shukla has expired on 6.3.2008, as is evident from death certificate Annexure P-5, claiming grant of family pension after accepting the voluntary retirement of her husband, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

On notice being issued respondents have only stated that the acceptance of the request of voluntary retirement of the petitioner''s husband with effect from 18.2.2000 by the Commissioner, Land Records and Rehabilitation was an incorrect and illegal action. It is stated that when the claim of the employee concerned for settlement of pension was forwarded to the treasury, it has been informed that voluntary retirement was not liable to be granted. Petitioner''s husband was on unauthorized leave from 9.7.1999 to 18.2.2000, it is stated that in view of this as he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service and, therefore, pension cannot be granted. However, even though matter is pending since 2005, there is no order passed by the State Government or any competent authority withdrawing the order of voluntary retirement and there is nothing to indicate that the period from 9.7.99 to 18.2.2000 cannot be treated as in service. It is, therefore, clear from the record that till date the State or the competent authority has not taken any action for cancelling the voluntary retirement already granted to the employee and it is not known as to how and on what basis the period from 9.7.1999 to 18.2.2000 is being treated as unauthorized absence. There is nothing to indicate that any departmental enquiry or action was taken during the life time of the employee concerned or while he was in service and when the order Annexure P-1 was passed on 1.8.2005. Even if the period was treated as unauthorized absence, then the department should have conduct an enquiry in the matter and appropriate order should have been passed in the matter of treating the period as not in service and thereafter action should have been taken for either accepting or rejecting the claim of voluntary retirement of the employee concerned. Nothing has been done and now after death of the employee all these assertions have been made that also because treasury has raised some objections. It is not known as to why application for voluntary retirement was accepted on 1.8.2005, when the department was already aware of the fact that for the period from 9.7.99 to 18.2.2000 i.e. for 226 days the employee was unauthorizedly absent. If the employee was unauthorizedly absent from 9.7.99 to 18.2.00 then when the employee was on service and much before his death or before the order Annexure P-1 was passed on 1.8.2005 appropriate action should have been taken in the matter. It was not appropriate on the part of respondents to have slept over the matter and now came out with a case that the widowed lady is not entitled to any pensionary benefit., as the absence of 226 days cannot be treated as qualifying service and is to be treated as unauthorized absence. Because of lethargy, negligence and total callous attitude of respondent and its officers, no action was taken at an appropriate time. That being so, for treating this period as unauthorized absence or a period not to be counted for service respondents should have taken action when the employee was alive or atleast when his claim for voluntary retirement have considered. All these having not been done now when the employee is no more, the widowed lady cannot be held liable to justify the absence of her husband and challenge the objection about unauthorized absence.

On the contrary it was for the respondents to conduct the enquiry and decide the question about the aforesaid period when the employee was in service or atleast when he was alive, all these having not been done I see no reason to permit the respondent now to conduct enquiry for determining the question of unauthorized absence or otherwise to deal with the matter.

That apart, voluntary retirement of the employee was accepted on 1.8.2005, this petition was filed on 21.6.2010 and the matter is pending for more than 3 years and even after return was filed on 9.2.2012 till date government has not taken any action, not even cancelled the voluntary retirement of the employee.

Taking note of all these factors now this court has no option but to allow the writ petition accepting voluntary retirement of the employee and grant all the pensionary benefit to the widowed lady, this court is constrained to take such action because now the period cannot be treated as unauthorized absence no proper process known to law was held before doing so and now the widowed lady of more than 60 years of age would not be in a position to justify her husband''s action of the so called unauthorized absence after his death.

Keeping in view the aforesaid this petition has to be allowed. Shri Satyanarayan Shukla should be treated as retired after his voluntary retirement was accepted on 1.8.2005 under Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, and treating him to have completed 20 years of service after counting the period of 226 days respondents are directed to settle all the post retiral claims of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of.