ASHA SAXENA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON behalf of the appellant, this intra -Court appeal is preferred under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyayalya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 02/12/2014 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4487/2014(S), whereby her writ petition filed for appropriate direction to the authorities of the respondents to release her pension and pensionary benefits, has been disposed of with some liberty, observations and directions.

(2.) AFTER taking us through the appeal memo, writ petition as well as Annexures of the same along -with impugned order, appellant's counsel submits that after retirement of the appellant though PPO was issued but the pension and pensionary benefits have been withheld and not released by the authorities of respondents to her, while as per prescribed existing rules and regulations, the authorities did not have any right to withhold the pensionary benefits of the appellant. In continuation, he said that for releasing the alleged pensionary benefits she was always insisted by the authorities of alleged institution to sign the cash book. While the appellant was not ready to sign the same unless the defections and lacunae pointed out by her in the cash book are not removed. In continuation, he said that in view of the settled proposition of law, on the aforesaid ground her pensionary benefits could not be withheld by the authorities of the institution. In continuation, he said that in any case, the amount of GPF could not be withheld by the authorities but such amount has also not been paid to her. In further argument, he said that after issuing the PPO, State authorities have to pay full pension and pensionary benefits but she was paid only 70% of the pension. In such situation, the appellant came to this Court with the impugned writ petition with a prayer for appropriate direction to the authorities of the respondents to give the aforesaid benefits but in response of the petition, in return supported with the affidavit again the aforesaid objection non -signing of the cash book by the appellant was taken. On consideration by Hon'ble Single Judge without extending any proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant, so also without considering her submissions contrary to the settled proposition of law, dismissed the petition under the wrong premises and prayed to set aside the impugned order of the Single Bench and allow her petition by admitting and allowing this appeal.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned appellant's counsel at length, keeping in view the arguments advanced, we have carefully gone through the record of the writ petition alongwith impugned order as well as the averments made in writ petition and appeal memo.