RAMESH KUMAR PATEL Vs. R.K. SWAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed inter alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 6.10.2010 in W.P. No. 3050/2007 (s) has not been complied with. In the original writ petition it was the case of the petitioner that he has retired from service and as departmental enquiry has not been concluded within a period of two years in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. R. L. Ogale and others - : 2006(1) MPLJ 412 the departmental enquiry is liable to be quashed.

(2.) Learned Single Bench of this Court after taking note of the law laid down in the case of R.L. Ogale (supra) allowed the writ petition and quashed the departmental proceedings and directed for releasing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner within a period of 90 days. Inter alia contending that the said order has not been complied with, this application has been filed.

(3.) AGAINST the order passed by the writ Court a Writ Appeal bearing No. 350/2011 is pending and therefore, for the present as the matter is subjudice before the Division Bench, contempt action cannot be initiated. Further this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the law laid down in the case of R.L. Ogale (supra) has been over ruled by the Full Bench in the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Pooran Lal - W.A. No. 311/2011 decided in January 2012, and it has been laid down that the provisions of Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 does not contemplate automatic closure of an enquiry after two years of retirement. The Full Bench having over ruled the law laid down in the case of R.L. Ogale (supra) it is apparent that the writ appeal shall be allowed and the order passed by the Writ Court would be quashed. That being so, it is not appropriate for this Court under the changed scenario to take action for contempt against the respondents. It is common ground that provisional pension in accordance with law are already paid to the petitioner, the question of paying regular pension over and above the provisional pension can be denied only after the departmental proceedings are finalized, under such circumstances, I see no reason to initiate action for contempt in this case.