ANIL KUMAR BARMAN Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Guard and retired from service as Forest Ranger, on 30th November, 2015, on completion of 58 years of age. However, since his retirement the pension till date has not been released. Representations had been preferred by the petitioner since 22nd May, 2016, but the same were to no avail. Further, case of the petitioner is that the undue delay in release of his pension is directly in violation of Office Memorandum No. FEM(PC)59/2006/8, dated 8th August, 2007 issued by the Government of Meghalaya, Finance (Pension Cell) Department wherein the norms have been laid down for timely compilation and forwarding of pension papers to Accountant WP(C) No. 351 of 2018 Page 2 of 3 General (A&E) so that superannuated employees not face hardships. It is also impressed by the said Office Memorandum that all Heads of Departments were to ensure strict compliance of Rule 61, 65 and 67 of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1983. The pension having not being released even after 2 years of retirement, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the instant writ petition for a mandamus to direct the respondents to process and release the same forthwith.

(2.) Mr. D. Kr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no impediment which prevents the respondents from releasing the pension of the petitioner, inasmuch as, even the objections that has been raised by the State respondents vide the affidavit-in-opposition at Paras 7 and 8, have no substance as according to the petitioner, he had complied with all the existing Guidelines of the Forest Development Agency and had submitted all the required accounts on 8th November, 2016. As such, he prays that mandamus be issued to the respondents to release his pension as expeditiously as possible.

(3.) Ms. R. Colney, learned GA for the respondents No. 1 to 7 submits that the respondents cannot be held to be culpable for the delay and the same cannot be attributed solely to the respondents in any manner. Learned counsel submits that as pointed out at Para 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it is because of the non-compliance of the Guidelines, by the petitioner that the pension papers of the petitioner could not be processed finally. The learned GA has also drawn my attention to letter dated 4th September, 2018 (Annexure-VII of the affidavit-in-opposition) which is addressed to the petitioner with regard to the updating and submission of Audit reports and General Accounts, and that it has been clearly mentioned therein that failure submission of the said reports might result in the pensionary benefits of the petitioner being affected.