H D SONI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 6th february 1982 passed by the First Civil Judge Class II, Durg, holding that the decree passed on 8th March 1980 declaring the plaintiff entitled to pension of Rs. 176 per month and dearness allowance as also gratuity amounting to Rs. 5,980 was void being without jurisdiction. The said decree is also for injunction.

(2.) THE plaintiff decree-holder, who is the applicant in this revision, retired as Assistant Public Prosecutor on 17th September 1975. The accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, sanctioned the pension of the applicant at Rs. 176 per month and gratuity of Rs. 5,980. The pension and gratuity were not paid to the applicant. The applicant then filed the suit in which the aforesaid decree was passed. It was held on merits that the applicant was entitled to pension of Rs. 176 per month and dearness allowance as also gratuity amounting to Rs. 5,980. An appeal was filed by the State and other defendants which was dismissed by the District judge on 17th July 1980. There was also a second appeal which was dismissed in motion on 18th August 1981. I am told that after the decree the applicant was paid Rs. 6,104. 15. As the full payment of pension and gratuity was not made, the applicant applied for execution. An objection was raised in the executing Court by the State and other non-applicants that the decree was without jurisdiction as a suit for pension and gratuity is not maintainable in the Civil Court having regard to the provisions of section 4 of the Pensions Act, 1871. This objection has been allowed by the executing Court and it has been held that the decree is a nullity. The executing Court has relied upon Single Bench decision of this Court in state of M. P. v. Rajaram Richariya, S. A. No. 947 of 1972, decided on the 17th July 1980.

(3.) IT seems rather strange as to why the State should take such an objection. After all the applicant retired from service in September 1975 and he was entitled to pension whether at the rate of Rs. 176 per month or at a lower rate. Pension of Rs. 176 per month these days is wholly inadequate for maintenance. After the suit was decreed on merits in spite of it being contested by the State and after the decree was confirmed in appeal and in second appeal, it ought to have been obeyed and the applicant should have been paid his arrears of pension and gratuity. The executing court has pointed out that although the applicant after retirement has joined the legal profession but he is not doing well as his eyesight is weak and he has recently undergone some operation. The executing Court has drawn the attention of the Government to the pitiable condition of the applicant and has recommended that his case be dealt with humanely and not legally. In spite of these pertinent remarks the case is not being dealt with humanely by the Government and the applicant is being deprived of his pension,. The officers who deal with pension cases on tike executing side very often forget that every officer has to retire some day and become dependant on pension only.