R B DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 30.11.2017 contained in Annexure P-8. By the said order an amount of Rs.18,21,800/- was adjusted from the anticipated pension of the petitioner and payment of only an amount of Rs.1616/- and Rs.20/- was made to petitioner on 22.04.2016.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc as Assistant Professor on 01.08.1980. Petitioner after selection from PSC joined on the post of Assistant Professor on 18.09.1986. Petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under Rule 42(1)(a) of Pension Rules. The resignation was accepted by respondents w.e.f. 10.05.2003. The respondents did not count the period of 01.08.1980 to 18.09.1986 when petitioner was serving as ad-hoc Assistant Professor for the purposes of calculating the pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. Petitioner being aggrieved by the action of respondents had filed Writ Petition No.3549/2004 before this Court which was allowed. The order passed in writ petition was challenged in Writ Appeal No.991/2011. The said writ appeal was disposed of vide order dated 03.09.2012 and liberty was granted to the State to examine the matter and pass appropriate order. The High Court passed orders in said writ appeal that matter may be examined by the State Government but no order prejudicial to the interest of petitioner be passed. Respondents considered the case of petitioner and counted 16 years and 7 months of service vide its order dated 30.10.2012 for calculation of pension and retiral benefits.

(3.) The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 10505/2013. This Court decided the writ petition vide order dated 30.09.2013. The writ petition was allowed, impugned orders dated 30.10.2012 and 17.04.2013 were quashed and direction was given to the respondents to take final decision for fixation of retiral claims of the petitioner. It was held by this Court that 5 years service ought to have been added for computation of pension in case there is any shortfall of period granting permission to voluntary retirement. In view of this order respondents have to consider case of petitioner by adding 5 years of service for payment of pension and gratuity amount. The order passed by the Single Bench was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1303/2013. The said writ appeal is admitted and same is pending for consideration. An order was passed in the said writ appeal on 12.12.2013 where it has been held that steps taken by respondents on the basis of impugned decision will be made subject to outcome of the writ appeal. There is no stay in the writ appeal and, therefore, retiral and other benefits can be granted to the petitioner but that will be subject to final outcome of the writ appeal on merits, which is pending for consideration.