Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Saroj Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 April, 2015
WP-8546-2013
(SMT. SAROJ NAMDEO Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE MS.VANDANA KASREKAR
WRIT PETITION NO.8546/2013
Smt.Saroj Namdeo
Vs.
State of M.P.and others
Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
ORDER
(17/04/2015) Husband of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Maharaja Martand College, Kotma, Distt. Shahdol on 1/9/1977. The staff of aforesaid college was absorbed in the Government th service vide order dated 19/26 March, 1987. By the said order the services of the husband of the petitioner was also absorbed and he was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the Commerce Department. The appointment of the husband of the petitioner was approved by the M.P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog vide order dated 7/1/1982. In other words the husband of the petitioner was duly qualified and appointed on the sanctioned post of Assistant Professor. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 4/10/1996. Subsequently, the petitioner was made payment of an amount of Rs.1,94,144/- towards GPF and Rs.1,20,000/- towards Group Insurance Scheme and interim family pension was also granted to the petitioner, however, without any reason, the respondents have stopped the payment of interim pension to the petitioner. She, therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P. No.1211/2005(s). In the said writ petition the respondents have filed the return stating that the husband of the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Professor in terms of the UGC guidelines and he continued as Adhoc Assistant Professor in the dying cadre. They further alleged that when the private college of the petitioner's husband was taken over, the services of the petitioner's husband were absorbed on adhoc basis. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 20/1/2010 by holding that the husband of the petitioner was qualified for regular appointment on the post of Assistant Professor and have further found that as the UGC has approved the appointment of husband of the petitioner vide letter dated 7/1/1982 and, therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner's husband did not possess the requisite qualifications in terms of the UGC guidelines is incorrect.
2. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the respondents have passed an order dated 12/6/2010 thereby releasing the interim pension to the petitioner, however, they did not make payment of other benefits which were admissible to the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation dated 28/8/2010 and after submitting the representation, approached to this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7538/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 4/5/2011 with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of four months. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 6/9/2011, however, as the respondents had failed to comply with the said order within a stipulated period as directed by this Court, the petitioner has, therefore, filed Contempt Case No.98/2012 which was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order. Subsequently, the respondents have passed an order dated 22/8/2012 rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner does not possess requisite qualifications and, therefore, he cannot be absorbed in Government service. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. The respondents have filed their return and in the return they have submitted that as the husband of the petitioner was not qualified for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, therefore, the Screening Committee did not find him eligible to be absorbed in Government service for lack educational qualification, therefore, they have decided that he will continue in service as adhoc basis in dying cadre. They have further submitted that as the husband of the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, therefore, he was not covered under the provisions as contained in M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, thus, the petitioner was not found eligible for grant of family pension and other death-cum-retiral benefits. It is further submitted that they have rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order and there is nothing arbitrary or illegal in the said order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier round of litigation while disposing of the writ petition No.12115/2005, this Court has found that the contention of respondents that the petitioner's husband did not possess the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Professor in terms of the UGC guidelines is incorrect. He further argued that in view of the observations made by this Court, as the petitioner's husband has rendered service for more than ten years and, therefore, he is entitled to get the family pension, he further argued that the appointment of the husband of the petitioner, on the post of Professor, Commerce, has been approved by the UGC on 7/1/1982 and, therefore, on the basis of the same ground that the petitioner does not hold the educational qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor, does not found good and, therefore, the order dated 22/8/2012 deserves to be set aside in the light of the observations made by this in W.P. No.12115/2005.
5. On the other hand, leaned counsel for the respondents submits that they have considered the representation submitted by the petitioner has found that the petitioner does not qualify for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor and he worked in the dying cadre till his death in 1996 and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the family pension and other retiral benefits.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is clear that while disposing of Writ Petition No.12115/2005 this Court in para 9 and 10 has held as under :
â9. From the above pleadings, it is not in dispute that the post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) was sanctioned post. The husband of the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Lecturer vide order dated 1/9/1977. At that time, he possessed the requisite qualification for his appointment on the post of Lecturer. Late Shri Vijay Kumar Namdeo had passed his M.Com examination in 1971 which is evident from Annexure P-11. Thus, he was qualified for the post. University Grants Commission had approved his appointment vide letter dated 7/1/1982 (Annexure P-10). Thus, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner's husband did not possess the requisite qualification to be appointed as Assistant Professor in terms of UGC guidelines is incorrect. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 11/1/1982 informed the husband of the petitioner that his appointment on the post of Professor (Commerce) has been approved by the UGC on 7/1/1982 and he was directed to take the charge and start the teaching. The husband of the petitioner has rendered the services for more than ten years, hence, she is entitled for family pension as per provisions of Rule 47 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
10. For the above mentioned reasons, the competent authority of the respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension under the Rules of 1976 which was earlier granted to her vide order dated 8/9/1988 @ Rs.1275/- per month within a period of two months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order, failing which she shall be entitled for interest on the arrears of family pension @ 9% per annum w.e.f.
January, 1999 and in case if it is found that under any circumstances she is not entitled for the same, the same shall be decided by passing a reasoned and speaking order within the said period.â
7. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court has categorically held that the appointment of the petitioner's husband was approved by the UGC on 7/1/1982 and he holds the requisite qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Professor in terms of the UGC guidelines. It has further held that the husband of the petitioner has rendered service for more than ten years and, hence, he is entitled for family pension as per the provisions of Rule 47 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
8. Thus, in view of the finding recorded by this Court vide order dated 20/1/2010 passed in W.SP. No.12115/2005, respondents cannot deny the benefit of pension as well as retiral dues to the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner does not fulfil requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. It is further submitted that the order dated 20/1/2010 passed in W.P. No.12115/2005 has attained its finality. In view of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.12115/2005, the order dated 22/8/2012 does not sustain and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
9. In view of aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 22/8/2012 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to release the pension and other retiral dues to the petitioner which are admissible to the husband of the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) JUDGE (VANDANA KASREKAR) JUDGE