NAND KISHORE SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 8-5-2009, 20-5-2009 and 6-6-2009 by which the respondent, No. 3, Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Multai, district-Betul has directed to disburse the amount of gratuity to the petitioner by withholding an amount of Rs. 1,06,531/-. The facts giving rise to filing of the petition, briefly, stated, are that the petitioner held the substantive post of Sub-Engineer and was in-charge Sub-Divisional Officer and was posted at the relevant time in Water Resources Department at Multai, district-Betul. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 28-2-2005. After superannuation of the petitioner, the amount of gratuity was not paid to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 15943/2005 (S). The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 19-12-2008 with a direction to the respondents to release the amount of gratuity along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum within a period of three months. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, by impugned order dated 8-5-2009, an amount of Rs. 1,06,531/- was directed to be withheld from the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in withholding the amount of gratuity without taking recourse to rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 (in short 'the Rules') is procedurally ultra vires. Attention of this Court has been invited to paragraph 3 of the reply and it has been submitted that the amount in question is sought to be recovered from the petitioner on account of negligence and, therefore, the respondents are duty bound to follow the procedure prescribed under rule 9 of the Rules. It is further submitted that alleged negligence was committed by the petitioner between the period from 1989 to 1996. It is also urged that reliance placed by the respondents on rules 62 and 65 of the Rules is misconceived as under the aforesaid Rules, ascertainable Government dues like house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income- tax deductible at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961, can be recovered.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that government dues which have been ascertained and assessed can always be recovered from the gratuity of a government servant. In this connection, learned Government Advocate has invited attention of this Court to Rule 60(2) of the Rules as well as Rule 61(c)(ii) of the Rules. It is further submitted that for recovery of ascertained government dues it is not necessary for the Department to initiate a departmental enquiry against the government servant.