LAWS(MPH)-2014-12-158

ASHA SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On December 02, 2014
ASHA SAXENA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner a retired employee has come before this Court with a prayer for release of pension and pensionary benefits by the respondents'/authorities. On notice being issued, the respondents'/State has filed the counteraffidavit, the petitioner has submitted rejoinder and thereafter, the respondents./State had also additional counter affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though PPO has been issued but the pension and pensionary benefits have not been released by the respondents'/authorities to the petitioner without any authority of law. Petitioner's counsel further submits that unless the defects/lacunae pointed out by the petitioner in the cash book are not removed by the concerned officials, the petitioner cannot be insisted to put her signature on the cash book. Therefore, on this score, the petitioner's pension and other pensionary benefits cannot be withheld as she is entitled to receive the same by virtue of issuance of PPO annexed with the rejoinder as Annexure RJ/7 at page No.26. Counsel further submits that the GPF amount cannot be withheld and the same has also not been paid so far to the petitioner.

(2.) Per contra, it is submitted by the respondents'/State's counsel that the petitioner during the course of her employment as Principal, Government Girls Post Graduate College, Gwalior has not signed the cash book of the institution and on her retirement, she was asked to sign the cash book register by the new incumbent by writing number of letters but since the petitioner has not cooperated in the matter of completion of requirements of signature on the cash book as against the disbursement and withdrawal, etc., during her tenure as Principal of the college, she is not entitled for receiving the pension and pensionary benefits. Though PPO has been issued, petitioner's full pension and pensionary benefits have not been released, however, she is being paid 70% of the pension. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was under legal obligation to put her signature on the cash book as against the disbursements, withdrawals etc., made out of the public money during her tenure. As a matter of fact, it was her duty before retirement to ensure that all the requisite formalities as regards disbursements, payments and withdrawals etc., of public funds are duly accounted for under her signature during her tenure. This has not been done. She has to thank herself for not releasing the pension and other pensionary benefits by the respondents'/authorities due to failure on her part in the matter of completion of the formalities in the cash book by appending her signatures, as required before her retirement from the service. In view of the above, no indulgence can be shown by this

(3.) Court while exercising writ jurisdiction. However, petitioner is always at liberty to approach the concerned authority at an early date to complete all the formalities in the matter of putting her signatures on the cash book. In case, the petitioner approaches, the respondents'/ authorities' shall be well advised to extend their cooperation in the matter of completion of the public document/cash book of the institution as there is an element of involvement of public funds, not later than 01 month from the date of her appearance alongwith certified copy of the order passed by this Court today and thereafter, it is for the respondents'/authorities' to consider the claim of the petitioner for release of the remaining pension and other pensionary benefits, in accordance with law. So far as claim of the GPF amount is concerned, the petitioner can make a separate representation addressed to the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior (respondent No.3) for settlement and payment thereof and the same shall be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost.