RAJENDRA SINGH SENGAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a retired Senior Horticulture Development Officer, has approached this Court by filing this writ petition claiming interest on the amount of retiral dues which were belatedly paid to him in the year 2012 on different dates. It is contended that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006. Prior to the date of retirement, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The said enquiry remained pending for a considerable long time. Ultimately, after the retirement of the petitioner final order was passed on 20.10.2011 exonerating the petitioner from the charges of embezzlement and closing the enquiry. Because of such a departmental enquiry, the retiral dues of the petitioner were not paid. Some of the other payments which the petitioner was entitled to receive were not released and, therefore, the respondents were liable to pay the interest on the said amount.

(2.) WHILE filing a return, the respondents have contended that timely the action was taken by them. The petitioner was paid the amount of General Provident Fund, Family Welfare Scheme, the Group Insurance and encashment of leave without any much loss of time in the year 2006 -07. Under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Rules), the petitioner was paid the provisional pension. The final payments have been made to the petitioner within 4 -5 months from the date of passing of the order in the departmental enquiry and, therefore, it is wrong to say that illegally the amounts were withheld and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to grant of interest. It is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) RULE 64 of the Pension Rules authorises the State to withhold a part of pension and the gratuity and not any other amount payable as leave encashment or arrears of salary. That too, if any embezzlement is found or financial loss is caused to the State Government, then only the amount of gratuity and pension alone could be withheld. A retired Government servant basically depends on whatever he gets immediately after his retirement and the pension and if he is deprived of such financial assistance, the very purpose of grant of pension and gratuity is frustrated. The other aspect is that neither the pension nor the gratuity is dependending on the sweet -will of the State. It is a proprietary right earned by an employee while serving the State. Denial of such benefits timely that too on the callous negligence of the authorities entails imposition of the penal interest. This particular aspect is considered by the Finance Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh and it has been already directed that in case there is delay in making payment of the arrears of gratuity or pension, interest should be paid on the said amount at the rate so prescribed by the Finance Department. Earlier the rate of interest was 12% per annum which has been reduced to 8% per annum in the year 2007. Thus, for such lapses on the part of respondents, they are liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the amount of retiral dues as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner has duly quantified the said amount as Rs.9,51,706/ - in para 5.9 of writ petition, which is not disputed by the respondents.