Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Manorma Sharma vs Department Of Horticulture on 6 April, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 19852/2017
1 Smt. Manorama Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & others.
Indore, dated : 06.04.2018
Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Swati Ukhale, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents, state.
With consent, heard finally.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents to release the pension to her which has been stopped by the bank due to non-production of certificate to the effect that her husband is alive.
2. The petitioner is wife of one Narendra Kumar Sharma who was appointed as Assistant Grade-III in the year 1994 in the Department of Horticulture & Territory Forestry, Ratlam. Due to health conditions, he took voluntary retirement on 30.11.2012. During service tenure, he has gone missing and the present petitioner lodged the report on 22.10.2010. Petitioner submitted an application on 4.8.2011 for grant of pension for her survival. Thereafter, she approached this Court by filing W.P. No.602/2012. This Court vide order dated 16.5.2012 has disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to the petitioner to furnish a bond as per Clause 3 of Circular dated 10.1.1992 and thereafter, the respondents shall release the family pension to her. The operative part of the order is reproduced below :-
"Financial Department of the State of M.P. has published the notification dated THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 19852/2017 2 Smt. Manorama Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & others.
10/01/1992 relating to xqe'kqnk@ykirk 'kkldh; deZpkjh@isU'kuj ds ifjokj dks lsokfuo`fRr ykHk This circular has been issued in compliance of the circular dated 29/08/86 issued by Central Government. Clause 3 of the said circular reads as under :-
"3- iz'kklfud ea=ky;@foHkkx }kjk fuEufyf[kr vkSipkfjdrkvksa dks wijk djus ds ckn mi;qZDr izlqfo/kk;sa eUtwj dh tk ldrh gS& 1- ifjokj dkss lEcfU/kr iqfyl Fkkus esa vo'; fjiksVZ ntZ djuh pkfg, vkSj ogka ls bl vk'k; dh ,d fjiksVZ djuh pkfg, fd iqfyl }kjk lHkh iz;kl fd;s tkus ds ckn lEcfU/kr deZpkjh dks ugha <a<k tk ldk gSA 2- deZpkjh ds uketn O;fDr@vkfJrksa ls ,d {kfriwfrZ cU/ki= fy;k tkuk pkfg, fd ;fn xqe'kqnk deZpkjh vk tkrk gS vkSj dksbZ nkok djrk gS rks lHkh Hkqxrkuksa dk lek;kstu ,sls deZpkjh dks n;s Hkqxrkuksa esa ls fd;k tk;sxkA"
Since the husband of the petitioner is missing w.e.f. 22/10/2010, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a short direction that upon production of copy of the order passed today and also upon furnishing bond as per clause-3 of the circular, respondents shall release the family pension to the petitioner forthwith without any further waste of time."
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, vide letter dated 13.3.2013, the Commissioner has directed the Assistant Director to make payment of pension to the petitioner from the joint account under the Pension Rules, 1961. Before the said order could be complied with, the husband of the petitioner appeared in the department. Thereafter, he applied for THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 19852/2017 3 Smt. Manorama Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & others. voluntary retirement and the same was accepted and he was permitted to retire w.e.f. 30.11.2012.
4. After retirement, the respondents settled the pension and started depositing the amount in his account in State Bank of India, Nai Abadi Branch, Mandsaur. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner again gone missing since 10.5.2016 and the petitioner lodged the report in the Police Station Industrial Area, Ratlam and the same was registered as Missing Person Registration No.0087/17. Since the husband of petitioner has gone missing, therefore, the bank has stopped withdrawal of the pension from the Saving Account. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
5. After notice, the respondents have filed the return by submitting that the husband of the petitioner was habitual absentee during his service career also. He was suffering from mental disorder and he was absent from 4.11.2009 to 6.7.2012 and his applicationf or VRS has been accepted. The petitioner is required to furnish the certification or declaration from the competent court to the effect that he is not alive then only, she will be entitled for pension.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. By order dated 16.5.2012, the writ petition was disposed of in the light of circular dated 10.1.1992. By the said circular, the State Government has taken a decision that the Department may grant the pension in case of missing of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 19852/2017 4 Smt. Manorama Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & others. retired Government employee, if the report of missing person is submitted along with a bond. The aforesaid circular is still in force and applicable in the case of the petitioner as her husband is missing and the report to that effect has already been lodged.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit the application as per Clause 3 of the aforesaid circular dated 10.1.1992. On submission of such application, the respondents shall start payment of pension to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
( VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Alok/-
Digitally signed by Alok GargavDate: 2018.04.07 12:20:10 +05'30'