Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. And Ors. vs Yogendra Prasad Sharma on 14 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)MPLJ667
Author: Shambhoo Singh
Bench: Shambhoo Singh
ORDER B.A. Khan, J.
1. Respondent was a Deputy Collector. He has retired since. It appears that during his service tenure he was charged of some irregularities allegedly to have been committed by him resulting in loss of some Government money. An enquiry was ordered against him. He was compulsorily retired from service and his pension was also ordered to be withdrawn by impugned order dated 9-11-1990. He filed O.A. No. 111/93 challenging this which was partly allowed by Tribunal vide order dated 10-4-1997 requiring respondents to pass fresh orders for withdrawing his pension in accordance to proviso to Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and in the Form provided under these Rules.
2. State has filed this petition now after two years or so calling in question the order passed by the Tribunal by placing a different interpretation on the provisions of Rule 9. The case set up is that under this proviso the requirement of minimum deduction was applicable to only part withdrawal of pension.
3. Respondent arguing in person submitted that he was 73 years old and was being continuously harassed and pushed to the brink of starvation. He pointed out that State had quietly managed to obtain notice in this petition without filing any formal application for condonation of delay and had not brought to the notice of this Court this fact at first hearing. This was done allegedly only to prolong his agony and deprive him of his pension for good. There was not even a word of explanation for filing the petition after two long years and depriving him of his pension since 1990.
4. Record shows that State had not filed any application for condonation of delay. Nor was this fact brought to the notice of the Court on first hearing and had it been done, Court would have issued notice on the condonation plea first and not in the writ petition involving the aged respondent in a bout of litigation when he was admittedly left with no resources to fend for himself.
5. We view this conduct of the State with concern and it appears to us very unfair and we suspect that it was done only to obtain notice in the petition and to drive the respondent in litigation once again.
6. That apart, State has not furnished any explanation for approaching this Court after two long years. All that is projected is that Law Department had received Tribunal order on 15-1-1998 and that there was some change in Officer-in-charge and that time was taken in collection of official records resulting in delay. The explanation offered is ridiculous, to say the least, because by no logic could it take two years or so for the Government to collect records to assail the Tribunal order. No Government worth its salt could afford to function at such snail's pace more so, in cases involving pensioners' rights who had rendered valuable service to it for years on.
7. Government counsel Mr. V. P. Khare had justified the delay by placing reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment in AIR 1996 SC 1623 pleading that since Government was impersonal machinery some latitude was permissible to be granted to it in matters of condonation of delay. This, however, would hold good in all circumstances. In the present case Government's attitude was glaringly callous aimed at involving 73 years old pensioner to unending litigation.
8. For all this we find no good reason for entertaining this petition which is hopelessly hit by latches and is dismissed for that. It is expected that respondents would appreciate the plight of the pensioner and release his part pension from the date it was withheld to enable him to sustain himself in this old age.
9. Registrar is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the State Chief Secretary for appropriate action at his end in the face of observations made by the Court.