STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SHAKUN DEVI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Calling in question tenability of the order dated 24th February, 2011 passed by the writ court in W.P. No. 7863/2009, this appeal has been filed by the State Government. The respondent is a 70 years old lady and the question pertains to the withdrawal of the family pension which she was receiving for a period of more than 40 years i.e. since 1981.

(2.) Facts in nutshell goes to show that late Shri Balmik Singh was working in the Agriculture Department and after his death family pension was granted to the petitioner. It is seen that on 28th February, 1987 a circular was issued by the State Government vide Annexure P/2 wherein it was indicated that every members of family or dependent of an employee who had retired or died prior to 01/04/1966 shall be entitled to receive family pension. Petitioner claimed family pension based on the aforesaid circular and submitted an application to the Deputy Director of Agriculture Development and the Farmers Welfare Organization, Satna, the same was taken up for consideration and after due approval and concurrence of the competent authority, the State Government passed an order granting family pension to the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid circular, family pension was ordered to be granted to the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. 01/04/1981 and an appropriate order in this regard was passed. The appellant was in receipt of the family pension retrospectively from 01/04/1981 and when all of a sudden based on a communication received from the office of Accountant General of Madhya Pradesh, the State Government passed an order on 22/10/2007 canceling the family pension of the petitioner without hearing her and without notice to her and without indicating any reason and when the pension which she was being granted was withdrawn in the manner indicated hereinabove, she represented to the authorities and when nothing was done in the matter, the writ petition in question was filed and in the writ petition, the petitioner raised the grounds as are indicated hereinabove. Respondents filed a reply which is available on record. In the reply the respondents admitted the position with regard to grant made in accordance to the circular dated 28/02/1987 but only says that based on the communication received from the office of the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, the impugned action is taken and it is tried to be pointed out that there is no record available with the department to show that late Shri Balmik Singh, was a government employee and has retired prior to the cut of date fixed by the circular dated 28/02/1987, it is said that on such consideration family of the petitioner was withdrawn. Respondents trying to justify their action on this ground. The writ court held that the action is unsustainable and allowed the writ petition. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General argued that as per the circular on such dependent and family members are entitled for pension where the employees was in government employment prior to the cut of date i.e. w.e.f. 01/04/1966 and in the case of the present petitioner as there was no material and documents available on record to show that late Balmik Singh was a government employee before 01/04/1966, based on the recommendation made by the A.G.M.P., the impugned action is taken.

(3.) Shri S.S. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent refuting the aforesaid argued that when the sanction was made after due inquiry it presuppose that the employees i.e. late Balmik Singh was working in the government department, all the requirements of circular dated 28/02/1987 are fulfilled and now if the respondents want to withdraw the benefit which was granted to the dependent of a deceased employee for a period of 40 years, then recording of cogent reasons and complying with the principle of natural justice was required. This having not been done learned counsel submits that the impugned action taken was unsustainable and no interference is called for now the writ court has not committed any error.