MURARILAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court who was a teacher appointed on 7th September, 1956 and attained the age of superannuation with effect from 31 st October, 1997 has filed this present writ petition claiming the pensionary benefits. It has been stated in the writ petition that in the year 1984, the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case under section 302 of IPC, he was convicted by the criminal Court on 2nd November, 1985 and a punishment of life imprisonment was inflicated upon him. The grievance of the petitioner is that while he was facing the criminal trial, subsistence allowance was paid continuously to him and the respondents even after his conviction have continued to pay the subsistence allowance to him till he has attained the age of superannuation on 31 st October, 1997. The petitioner has further stated that the respondents have further paid him the anticipatory pension upto November, 2000 and all of a sudden, they have stopped the payment of anticipatory pension. The petitioner has prayed in this writ petition for payment of regular pension, arrears of pension, gratuity, G.P.F. and other retiral dues.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have not passed any order as provided under rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classficiation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1966) on account of conviction of the petitioner and, therefore, as no order was passed under rule 19, he is entitled for pension in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the pension of the petitioner cannot be withheld as he has not been convicted as a pensioner nor he has been found guilty of any grave misconduct in any departmental enquiry proceedings or any j udicial order has been passed restraining the respondent from payment of pension to the petitioner. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, OSFC, and others (1999) 3 SCC 666 and his contention is that in the absence of any provision for withholding the pension as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent cannot deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right of drawing the pension.