SHRIMATI ASHA SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON behalf of the appellant of Writ Appeal No.322/2014(S) dismissed vide order dated 28th January, 2015, this petition is preferred by the petitioner to review such dismissal order dated 28th January, 2015 passed in such appeal.

(2.) PETITIONER 's counsel after taking us through this petition as well as the impugned order and by referring to the Writ Petition No.4487/2014(s) and the papers annexed with such petition said that while passing the impugned order by this Court, questions raised by the petitioner in the appeal memo were not considered in their proper perspective in the light of existing legal position including Rule 64 of the Madhya Pradesh (Pension) Rules, 1976. As per the allegations of the petitioner, her pensionary benefits were wrongly withheld by the Authorities contrary to the rules, regulations, while, in any case, the petitioner was entitled to get 90% sum of pension. He also said that the approach of the Writ Court in the order under challenge in the writ appeal was also contrary to some rules of the Central Government which are applicable to all the government servants. He further said that in spite of issuance of Pension Payment Order (PPO) by the appropriate Authority vide order dated 11/9/2014, the Authorities of the respondents did not pay related sum of pension to the petitioner.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner further said that in writ petition as well as in the appeal memo of the aforesaid writ appeal, the petitioner had categorically stated that unless the irregularities and illegalities of the cash books are rectified, she is not bound to sign the same, and in such premises, the approach and observations of the Writ Court on account of non signing the cash book by the petitioner, could not have been affirmed by this Bench by dismissing the writ appeal. In any case, such questions ought to have been considered on merits in the appeal but without considering all such material aspects, his appeal has been dismissed. In such premises, on the grounds stated in the review petition, he prayed to review and recall the aforesaid order dated 28/1/2015 and decide such appeal afresh after extending the further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to make submissions in the appeal.