MANMOHAN KAUR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a retired professor and Head of Department filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking various terminal / retiral dues.

(2.) SHRI Sourabh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that during pendency of this matter respondents have paid certain claims including payment of surrender leave, pension and gratuity etc. However, these payments were made belatedly for which petitioner is entitled to get interest. He submits that respondents have not paid the amount arising out of Compulsory Deposit Scheme (CDS). In addition, respondents have not paid the amount flowing from insurance scheme of 1985, fund scheme of 1974 and insurance scheme of 2003. By placing reliance on the orders of Indore Bench in WP.3121/2006 (Dr. Pramod Kushwaha Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) and WP.6690/2006 ( Smt. Shakuntala Saxena Vs. State of M.P.), it is submitted that petitioner is entitled to get interest on delayed payment. In addition, Shri Verma submits that by the impugned order petitioner's pension was reduced. Before such reduction, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. As per Rule 52 of M.P. Civil Services ( Pension) Rules, 1976 ( Pension Rules) the reduction in pension without granting opportunity was impermissible.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.