Chattisgarh High Court

Ratindra Bose vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 10 February, 2023

                                      1

                                                                      NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          WPS No. 4911 of 2012

                      Order reserved on : 10.11.2022

                     Order delivered on : 10.02.2023

      Ratindra Bose S/o Late Shri S.K. Bose, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
       Plot No.4, Hasan Colony, Thana Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.)

                                                              ---- Petitioner

                                  Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Health
        And Family Welfare, DKS Bhawan Mantralaya, Thana Civil Lines,
        Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     2. Director, Medical Education, DKS Bhawan Mantralaya, Thana Civil
        Lines Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     3. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Through Dean, Jail
        Road, Thana Moudhapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

     4. Office of the Accountant General, Opposite Vidhansabha, Thana
        Mowa, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                          ---- Respondents

For Petitioner                    Mr. A. K. Kundu, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.1 to 3         Mr. Sameer Oraon, GA


                    Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey

                                C A V Order

1. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondents to pay retiral dues to the petitioner with

interest.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as

Physical Training Instructor (PTI) vide order dated 09.11.1977 on

temporary basis. Subsequently, he was awarded UGC pay scale

w.e.f. 24.05.2004 by the Department of Medical Education,

erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and the same was affirmed by

the Department of Health and Family Welfare, State of Chhattisgarh

vide order dated 12.01.2005. Later on, the petitioner's post was

transformed into the post of Sports Oficer vide order dated

22.08.2008. The further case of the petitioner is that an unknown

complaint regarding false appointment of him in the service was

lodged against the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner submitted an

application for voluntary retirement on 01.10.2010 with 3 months'

prior notice to the Department. The petitioner informed the

respondent No.3 regarding completion of 3 months period in

reference to his application for voluntary retirement vide letter dated

31.12.2010 and requested for payment of pension and gratuity and

even filed representations in this behalf, but neither he was given

pension and gratuity nor his representations were decided. Hence

this petition.

3. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

1. That the Hon'ble court may be kind enough to call the record of the petitioner.

2. That the Hon'ble court may be kind enough to command the respondents by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus and to direct the respondents to pay the retiral dues to the petitioners with interest.

3. That the Hon'ble court may be kind enough to pass any order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents

have failed to exercise the statutory Rule 42 (1) (a) of Chhattisgarh

Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976, wherein within the statutory

period of 3 months, prior notice was given by the petitioner on

01.10.2010 and the same was also intimated on 31.12.2010 after

completion of 3 months and completion of statutory period of 20

years in service therefore the petitioner is entitled to pension and

other benefits. He further submits that the respondents have neither

suspended the petitioner nor instituted any enquiry against the

petitioner prior to completion of statutory period of 3 months and

even thereafter, thus the payment of pension and other retiral dues

are bound to be paid to the petitioner as early as possible in

accordance with Rule 43 of the Pension Rules, but neither the

pension nor the gratuity was paid till today from the date of his

superannuation i.e. 31.12.2010. He further submits that the

respondents have illegally and maliciously refuted the voluntary

retirement application of the petitioner and instead proposed action

against him under the Civil Services Conduct Rules 1965 despite

the VRS application being effectuated on 31.12.2010 i.e. 11 months

prior to the above mentioned illegal action. The respondents have

violated Pension Rules, wherein pension applicable would be

payable from the date when the government servant retires from the

duty, but till date no amount in form of retiral dues has been paid to

the petitioner. The respondents have also violated Rule 74 of the

Pension Rules, wherein pension pay order was required to be

issued within 15 days from the date of superannuation, but neither

the same was done nor any anticipatory and provisional

pension/gratuity was paid. He next submits that the respondents

have further failed to exercise their powers devolved in them under

Rule 57 of the Pension Rules, wherein the preparation of pension

papers and verification of service was required to be started two

years prior to the date of actual retirement, as such nothing remains

to restrain the release of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity

in favour of the petitioner, but none of these were ever paid to the

petitioner. The respondents have also failed to submit the records to

the Office of Accountant General for verification by the Audit Officer

and the same was kept without any reason, as such legal formalities

could not be completed by the Office of Accountant General,

therefore, the petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents

be directed to pay the retiral dues to the petitioner with interest.

Learned counsel has placed his reliance upon the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay L.

Mehrotra Versus State of U.P. & Others (2001) 9 SCC 687,

Ashok Kumar Chhajed Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others

rendered by this High Court in WPS No.7092/2021 vide Order dated

14.03.2022, Dr. Bharat Singh Chouhan Versus Public Health &

Family Welfare rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in

WP No.6549/2015 vide order dated 22.09.2015, State of M.P. &

Others Versus M. K. Verma & Others, reported in (2002) 3 MPLJ

25 and in the matter of Chandrakanta Versus State of M.P. &

Others passed by the M.P. High Court in WP No.6475/2003 vide

order dated 11.01.2007.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submit that the

complaint dated 15.06.2010 was made by one Vijay Bahadur Singh

and the same was received by the respondents, in which he alleged

that some ineligible persons were appointed and promoted against

the provisions of law and thereby heavy monetary loss has been

caused to the State Exchecker. Thereafter a report was called by

Director, Medical Education, Respondent No.2 from the Dean, Pt.

Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Respondent No.3. The

respondent No.3 submitted its report on 01.12.2012, in which it was

mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner was not as per law

and was not done by the competent officer. It was also mentioned in

the said report that the petitioner was not holding the degree of

MPED, which was minimum qualification for the post of PTI as per

rules prevalent at the relevant point of time. On 12.07.2012 the

Respondent No.1 has categorically stated in the official notesheet

that there is no question to accept the application for voluntary

retirement of the petitioner, as there are irregularities in the

appointment of the petitioner and also in his promotions and the

directions were issued to take the opinion of the General

Administrative Department/Finance Department for removing the

petitioner from the government services and the matter was pending

for taking decision before the concerned department. Therefore, this

petition is premature and is not maintainable accordingly and be

dismissed and consequent of which the petitioner is not at all

entitled to any relief prayed for. Learned counsel has placed his

reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Mahadeo and others vs Smt. Sovan Devi and others,

reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 730.

6. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.4, despite notice

being served.

7. Heard both the counsels for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

8. The petitioner filed various documents from the date of his joining in

the services to the date of filing of application for voluntary

retirement. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on

09.11.1977 as Physical Training Instructor (PTI) vide Annexure-P/1.

On 10.03.1978 his post was extended till further order vide

Annexure-P/2. Vide order dated 24.05.2004 (Annexure-P/3)

petitioner was granted UGC Pay Scale and as per order dated

12.01.2005 (Annexure-P/4) petitioner's pay was upgraded and

fixed. On 17.08.2007 his post was named as Sports Officer vide

Annexure-P/5. As per the order dated 22.08.2008 the aforesaid post

of PTI was named as Sports Officer vide Annexure-P/6. On

10.05.2010 vide Annexure-P/7, the petitioner was awarded revised

pay scale. On 01.10.2010 the petitioner filed application for

voluntary retirement with 3 months' priot notice vide Annexure-P/8,

but no action was taken on his VRS application and instead

departmental action was proposed against the petitioner. The

petitioner has filed several applications and representations for

fixation of his pension and retiral benefits, but no decision was taken

by the respondents. The respondents instead issued a letter dated

30.01.2013 vide Annexure-P/25 to the petitioner, which reads as

under:-

"dk;kZy; vf/k"Bkrk] ia]t] us Le`fr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; jk;iqj ¼NRrhlx<+½ [email protected]@fpfd]@LFkk]@2013 jk;iqj fnukad [email protected]@13 izfr] Jh vkj] cksl dzhMkf/kdkjh] glu dkWykuh uwru Ldwy ds ikl fVdjkikjk jk;iqj N]x]

fo"k;%& lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk uksfVlA

lanHkZ%& lapkyd fpfdRlk f'k{kk N]x] jk;iqj ds i= dzekad [email protected]@ lafpf'[email protected] jk;iqj fnukad 16]08]2011

1] fo"k;karxZr lanfHkZr i= ds vuqdze esa ys[k gS fd vkidh lsok iqfLRkdk esa vafdr izfof"V ds vuqlkj dk;kZy; vf/k"Bkrk] ia]t] us Le`fr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; jk;iqj ds vkns'k dzekad [email protected]&52 fnukad [email protected]@1977 ds }kjk vLFkk;h #i ls vkidh fu;qfDr rhu ekg ds fy, lapkyd LokLF; lsok,sa ls vuqeksnu dh 'krZ ij dh xbZ FkhA lapkyd LokLF; lsok,sa ds vuqeksnu dh izR;k'kk esa dk;kZy;hu lela[;d vkns'k dzekad 1855 fnukad 10]03]1978 }kjk vkidh fu;qfDr vkxkeh vkns'k rd ds fy, c<+kbZ xbZ FkhA lapkyd LokLF; lsok,sa }kjk vkidh fu;qfDr dks vuqeksnu iznku djus dk nLrkost uLrh esa miyC/k ugha gSA 2] lsok iqfLrdk esa nf'kZr Vhi ds vk/kkj ij vkidh fu;[email protected] fu;e vuqlkj ugha gksus ds dkj.k Nrrhlx<+ 'kklu LokLF; ,ao ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx }kjk xyr ekuk x;k gSA vr,o N]x] 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds ifji= dzekad [email protected]&[email protected]@[email protected] ,[email protected] Hkksiky fnukad 30]08]1993 ds ifjikyu esa vkidks lsok ls c[kkZLr djus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gSA 3] vkidk vkosnu fnukad 01]10]2010 }kjk LosPNk lsokfuo`fRr gsrq izLrqr rhu ekg iwoZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij dk;Zokgh ugha gksus ds dkj.k fnukad 31]12]2010 dks vkosnu fu"izHkkoh gks tkrk gSA rhu ekg ds vanj vkidh LosPNk lsokfuo`fRr ckcr~ l{ke Lohd`fr vkns'k tkjh ugha gksus dh n'kk esa fnukad 01]01]2011 ls vius dRrZO; ij iqu% mifLFkr gksuk vko';d Fkk] fdUrq vki vukf/kd`r :i ls vius dRrZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgsaA mijksDrkuqlkj vkidk d`R; N]x] flfoy lsok vkpkj.k fu;e&7 vkSj ewyHkwr fu;e 18 ds vuqlkj vuq'kklughurk gSA vr% mijksDr fcUnq dzekad 1 ls 3 esa nf'kZr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa ;qfDr;qDr izek.k & i=ksa lfgr viuk tokc 07 dk;Z fnol ds vanj izLrqr djsaA le; lhek esa tokc izkIr ugha gksus ij ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA

vf/k"Bkrk ia] t] us] Le`fr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; jk;iqj N]x] dzekad @[email protected] fpfd]@LFkk]@2013 jk;iqj fnukad [email protected]@13

izfrfyfi %& 1] lapkyd fpfdRlk f'k{kk N]x] jk;iqj dks lanfHkZr i= ds rkjrE; esa lknj lwpukFkZ iszf"krA

vf/k"Bkrk ia]t] us Le`fr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;

jk;iqj N]x]"

Apart from the documents filed by the petitioner, the

respondents have also filed one document (Annexure-R/1), which is

a letter dated 01.12.2010, which relates to complaint. The relevant

part of the letter is as under:-

"Jh jrhUnz cksl& fo"k;karxZr ys[k gS fd e-iz- 'kklu f'k{kk foHkkx us fnukad 03-08-76 dks vkns'k ¼Nk;kizfr layXu&01½ tkjh dj ih-Vh-vkbZ- inuke dks ifjofrZr dj LiksVZl~ vkfQlj inuke ?kksf"kr fd;k Fkk rFkk ;w-th-lh us bl ij dk osrueku jkT; ds f}rh; Js.kh vf/kdkjh ds osrueku ds led{k j[kk ,oa fu;qfDr ds fy;s vko';d vgZrk ,e- ih- ,M fd;k FkkA ¼Nk;kizfr layXu&02½ ijUrq LokLF; foHkkx esa ;g in r`rh; Js.kh dk FkkA fnukad 9-11-1977 dks vf/k"Bkrk }kjk ih-Vh- vkbZ- in ij Jh jrhUnz cksl dh ek= 03 ekg dh vof/k ds fy;s fu;qfDr dh xbZ Fkh ¼Nk;kizfr layXu&03½ ,oa ckn esa fnukad 10-03- 78 dks vkxkeh vkns'k rd lsok o`f) dh xbZ ¼Nk;kizfr layXu&04½A ;g fu;qfDr fu;ekuqlkj ugha Fkh] fu;fer ugh Fkh ,oa l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk ugha dh xbZ FkhA vr% ;g fu;qfDr oS/k ,oa ekU; ugha gks ldrhA muds ikl bl ij gsrq fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ,e-ih-,M Hkh ugha FkhA bl ifjizs{; esa ekuuh; e-iz- mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds

MCY;w ih- dza- [email protected]] MCY;wih-dz [email protected] MCY;wih- dza [email protected]] MCY;w ih- dza [email protected] esa fnukad 01-03-2002 dks ikfjr vkns'k fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx ds ykbZczsfj;u ,oa ih-Vh-vkbZ dks 1-1-1973 ls mPp osrueku fn;k tkos ¼Nk;kizfr layXu&05½A vFkkZr ;w-th-lh- dk osrueku fn;k tkos] dks Li"V :i ls le>uk gksxkA oLrqr% jkT; dks bu inksa dks jktif=r lsok Hkjrh fu;e vuqlkj djuk pkfg;s Fkk rkfd leku ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa osru folaxfr u gksA iqu% ekuuh; U;k;ky; dk vkns'k oS/k ,oa fu;fer fu;qfDr ds izdj.kksa esa ykxw gksxk u fd fu;e fo:) fu;qfDr esa ,oa vik= O;fDr;ksa dh fu;qfDr ds izdj.k esaA Jh cksl ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa [email protected] izfroknh Hkh ugha FksA Nrrhlx<+ 'kklu us vius vkns'k fnukad 22-08-2008 }kjk ih-Vh-vkbZ- inuke dks dzhMk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr fd;k gS ¼Nk;kizfr layXu&06½A vr% fnukad 22-08- 2008 dks fu;ekuqlkj vgZrk j[kus ij Jh cksl dks dzhMk vf/kdkjh ds in dk osrueku ¼ikaposa osru vk;ksx vuqlkj½ :- 3050&4590 j[kk gS] ¼Nk;kizfr layXu&07½ vFkkZr ;g r`rh; Js.kh dk in gSA bl izdkj ,d gh laLFkk esa nks leku inksa ij dk;Z djus okys O;fDr ds osrueku fHkUu&fHkUu gks tk,xsaA

iqu'p ys[k gS fd fd N-x- 'kklu LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx ds vkns'k fnukad 12-01-2005 vuqlkj ¼Nk;kizfr layXu&08½ ;w-th-lh- vgZrk j[kus ij Jh cksl dks izoj Js.kh dh ik=rk gks ldrh Fkh] ijarq ;s vko';d vgZrk ugha j[krs gS ftlds dkj.k mudks dzhM+k vf/kdkjh ds ewy osru 8000&13500 : esa gh j[kk tkuk pkfg;s Fkk u fd izoj Js.kh osrueku esaA bl izdkj Jh cksl dks vf/kd osru Hkqxrku gksuk izrhr gksrk gSA e-iz- 'kklu dk Hkh vkns'k fnukad 24-05- 2004 ¼Nk;kizfr layXu&09½ N-x- 'kklu ds deZpkjh ds izdj.k esa iqufoZpkj ds ;ksX; gSA rkfd 'kklu dks vuko';d foRrh; gkfu u gksA ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dh lgh ,oa leqfpr O;k[;k dh vko';drk gS ftlls lgh vFkksZa esa bldk ikyu lqfuf'pr gks ,oa blds dkj.k dksbZ folaxfr mRiUu u gksaA"

9. The petitioner also filed entries of his service book, which shows

that UGC pay scale was granted to the petitioner by the respondent

authorities. The respondents filed some note sheet, which shows

that the application of the petitioner was not accepted by the

Department and he did not join his service after notice period i.e.

01.01.2011 and due to this misconduct some disciplinary action was

proposed against him. The petitioner filed copy of this notesheet

(Annexure-P/22), which is as under:-

fo"k;& Jh vkj- cksl dks lsok ls izFkd djus dk uksfV'k tkjh djus ckcr~ lapkyd fpfdRlk f'k{kk NRrhlx<+ jk;iqj ds i= dzeka [email protected]@ lafpf'[email protected] fnukad 16-08-2011 ds ifjikyu esa Jh- vkj- cksl dks lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk uksfV'k tkjh djus ckcr~ fuEufdr rF;ks dks lekos'k djrs gq;s i= tkjh fd;k tkuk gS&

1- lsok iqfLrdk esa vafdr izfof"V ds vuqlkj dk;kZy; vf/k"Brk ia-t-us- le~fr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; jk;iqj ds vkns'k [email protected]@9849&[email protected] 09-11-1977 }kjk vLFkk;h :i ls Jh vkj- cksl fu;qfDr rhu ekg ds fy, lapkyd LokLF; laok,a ls vuqeksnu dh 'krZ ij dh xbZ FkhA dk;kZy;hu lela[;d vkns'k

dzekad&1855] fnukad 10-03-1978 }kjk in/kkjh dh fu;qfDr vkxkeh vkns'k rd ds fy, c<+kbZ xbZA rnuqlkj Jh vkj- cksl dh rhu ekg dh l'krZ fu;qfDr dk vuqeksnu lapkdy LokLF; lsok,a ls izkIr ugha fd;k x;k gSA layXu 1 ,oa 2

2- mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij Jh vkj- cksl dh fu;qfDr fu;ekuqlkj ugha gksus ds dkj.k N0x0 'kklu LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx }kjk xyr ekuk x;k gSA vr,o N0x0 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds ifji= dzekad [email protected]&[email protected]@[email protected],[email protected]] fnukad 30- 08-1993 ds ifjikyu esa Jh vkj- cksl dks lsok ls c[kkZLr djus dh dk;Zokgh dh tkuk gSA layXu 3 ,oa 4

3- Jh vkj- cksl dk vkosnu fnukad 01-10-2010 }kjk LosPNk lsok fuo`fRr gsrq izLrqr rhu ekg iwoZ lwpuk ij dk;Zokgh ugha gksus ds dkj.k fnukad 31-12-2010 dks fu"izHkko gks tkrk gSA rhu ekg ds vanj Jh vkj cksl dh lsok LosPNk lsok fuo`fRr ckcr~ Lohd`fr vkns'k tkjh ugha gksus dh n'kk esa fnukad 01-01-2011 ls vius dRrZO; ij iqu% mifLFkr gksuk vko';d Fkk] tks vkt fnukad rd Jh vkj- cksl vius dRrZO; ls vuqifLFkr gSA mijksDrkuqlkj Jh vkj- cksl dk d`R; N0x0 flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e& 1965 ds fu;e&29-¼xv½ds vuqlkj vopkj gSA vr% mijksDr fcUnq dzekad 1 o 3 esa vafdr rF;ksa ds lac/k ;qfDr;qDr lk{; lfgr viuk tokc 07 dk;Z fnol ds vUnj izLrqr djk;k tkuk gSA le; lhek tokc izkIr ugha gksus ij ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh dh tkuk izLrkfor gSA layXu 5

4 mYys[kuh; gS fd NRrhlx<+ 'kklu LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx ea=ky;] jk;iqj ds vkns'k dzekad ,Q&3&[email protected]@[email protected]] fnukad 22 vxLr 2008 }kjk Jh cksl] dks dzhMkf/kdkjh ¼jktif=r½ in Lohd`fr iznku dh xbZ tks fujLr ugha gqvk gSA vr% jktif=r gksu ds dkj.k uksfV'k tkjh djus ds iwoZ NRrhlx<+ 'kklu ls vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA vr% uLrh lfpo N0x0 'kklu dks vxzsflr djuk pkgsaxsA layXu 6 ,oa 7 uksfV'k dk izk:i vuqeksnukFkZ izLrqr vf/k"Bkrk lapkyd] fpfdRlk f'k{kk jk;iqj lfpo N0x0 'kklu LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx"

10. It is clear from all the documents that till filing of VRS application by

the petitioner, no action was taken by the respondents against the

petitioner. The notesheet further discloses that these proceedings

were initiated after several months of petitioner's VRS application

and the respondents did not grant pension and retiral dues to the

petitioner. The respondents have not denied this fact that earlier the

petitioner was granted UGC pay scale and other benefits as per

orders of erstwhile M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur as

well as the Hon'ble High Court of Madha Pradesh.

11. The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 reads as

under:-

"42. Retirement on completion of [20 years] qualifying service. - [(1) (a) A Government servant may retire at any time after completing 20 years qualifying service, by giving a notice in Form 28, to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire or on payment by him of pay and allowances for the period of three months or for the period by which the notice actually given by him falls short of three months :

Provided that where the Government servant giving such notice is under suspension, he shall not be allowed to retire from service without the prior permission in writing of the appointing authority.

(b) The appointing authority may in the public interest require a Government servant to retire from service at any time after he has completed [20 years qualifying service or he attains the age of 50 years whichever is earlier], with the approval of the State Government by giving him three months notice in Form 29 :

Provided that such Government servant may be retired forthwith and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing then immediately before his retirement or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months."

12. As per Rule 42 (1) (A) of the Pension Rules, the employee who

voluntarily retires after completing 20 years qualifying service by

following the requisite procedure laid down thereunder would be

entitled to pension under the said Rules. But in petitioner's case, the

respondents did not accept his VRS application within notice period

of 3 months and after several months they proposed departmental

enquiry proceeding against the petitioner. In their reply, the

respondents did not mention any reasonable ground that as to why

they did not take any action against the petitioner within the notice

period and whey they did not accept or reject the application of the

petitioner before completion of notice period on 31.12.2010. Neither

the departmental enquiry or any proceeding was pending against

the petitioner before 31.12.2010 nor any dues was pending till

04.06.2011, as is evident vide Annexures-P/19 & P/20 and after 7

months of his proposed retirement, initiation of departmental

proceeding was proposed against the petitioner and after 2 years of

his retirement, the notice for removal of his service was issued on

30.01.2013 vide Annnexure-P/25. Thus, it is evident that the

petitioner has been illegally denied to his pension and retiral

benefits and the enquiry was proposed against the petitioner after

several months of his retirement.

13. This Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Chhajed vs State of

Chhattisgarh and others, passed in WPS No.7092/2021 vide order

dated 14.03.2022, held in paras 9 & 10 as under:-

"9. The aforesaid view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stands further fortified by the recent decision which has been relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Dr. A. Selvaraj (supra) wherein again in paragraphs 7 & 8 the Supreme Court has held as under:-

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that as there was a delay in making the payment of retirement benefits and settling the dues for which the appellant employee is not at all responsible, he is entitled to the interest on the delayed payment. Even the Division Bench of the High Court has also observed in the impugned judgment and order that the appellant is entitled to the interest on the delayed payment.

However, there is an inter se dispute between the Secretary, Management and the Government as to who is responsible for the delay in making the payment to the appellant and therefore, he has been denied the interest on delayed payment though entitled to. It is to be noted that as such pursuant to the interim order dated 09.08.2021, the Government did conduct an

enquiry and fastened the liability on the college and observed that the former Secretary, Shri C.M.

Ramaraj was responsible for the delay in disbursal of the terminal benefits to the original writ petitioner. In that view of the matter, subject to the further final order that may be passed by the Government, the College/Management is first liable to pay the interest on the delayed payment of retirement dues subject to the final decision, which may be taken by the Government, after hearing the Management and the former Secretary. However, because of the inter se dispute between the Management, Secretary and the Government on who is responsible for the delay in making the payment and/or settling the dues, the retired employee should not be made to suffer for no fault of his.

8. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, present Appeal Succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and that of the learned Single Judge denying the interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits to the appellant is hereby quashed and set aside. The Management / Trustees / College are hereby directed to pay the interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits to the Appellant, from the date of retirement till the actual payment was made, subject to the final decision that may be taken by the Government on the objections to the enquiry report that may be filed by the former Secretary and/or the College and it will be open for the College / Management / Trustees to recover the same from the person, who, ultimately is held to be responsible for the delay. The payment of interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits to be paid strictly within a period of six

weeks from today. In the meantime, the Government to pass a final order on the enquiry report after giving an opportunity to the College / Management / former Secretary. It goes without saying that it would be open to the aggrieved party to challenge the said decision before the appropriate forum."

10. The view of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment again is on the ground that unless the employee is held responsible for the delay, he should not be made to suffer for the delayed payment for no fault of his."

14. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Bharat

Singh Chauhan vs Public Health and Family Welfare, passed in

WP No.6549/2015, order dated 22.09.2015, held in paras 6, 9, 10 &

11 as under:-

6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 14.8.1985. He has completed 25 years of qualifying service on 14.8.2010. He has submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement on 26.10.2013 in the prescribed formate and has also deposited a month's salary in lieu of notice period amounting to Rs.78,595/-. He has sought voluntary retirement on 26.10.2010. Rule 42 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 reads as under :-

"42. Retirement on completion of 15/20 years qualifying service- (1). (a)- Government servant may retire at any time after completing 15 years qualifying service, by giving a notice in form 28 to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire or on payment by him of pay and allowances for the period of three months or for the period by which the notice actually given by him falls short of three months;

xxxx

"9. This Court in the case of Narayan Prasad Vs. The Honourable District and Sessions Judge, Ratlam in paragrahs 9 and 10 has held as under :-

"9. A perusal of Rule 42(1) (a) shows that no reasons are required to be given in the notice seeking voluntary retirement. It is the volition and choice of the Government servant to seek voluntary retirement after completing 20 years of service by giving three months notice. This notice comes into operation after the expiry of the period of three months automatically. The relationship of master and servant comes to an end on completion of the notice period by the unilateral act of the Government servant. Such a notice does not require any acceptance by the appointing authority. The volition act of the Government servant brings an end to the "binding knot".

10. The decision of this Court in Indra Prakash v. State of M.P. 1985 MPLJ 229 has taken the same view. It was held that a Government servant who has completed 20 years qualifying service has an absolute and indefeasible right to retire at any date of his choice. The notice of voluntary retirement does not require any order or acceptance by the appointing authority."

10. A similar petition has also been decided by this Court in the case of Dr. Umesh Chandra Sharma (supra).

11. In light of the aforesaid judgments, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be retired voluntarily w.e.f. 26.10.2013. The respondents are directed to finalise the terminal/penionary dues within a period of three months and also to pay the arrears of other terminal/pensionary dues and regular pension by treating the petitioner as retired from service voluntarily w.e.f. 26.10.2013. The respondents shall release the actual payment also in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

15. Applying the aforesaid principles in the present case as well, it is

quite vivid that in the present case in hand also, the petitioner

completed his 20 years qualifying service and after completion of

the said period, he filed application for voluntary retirement. True it

is that some unknown complaint was filed against the petitioner and

the same may have some substance in it, but the fact remains that

the action was required to be proposed or taken within the expiry of

notice period of 3 months and after expiry of the said period, the

petitioner was proposed to be retired from service i.e. on

31.12.2010 and even thereafter the action was proposed and his

pension and retiral dues were retained, which should not have been

done. Even otherwise, it is the volition and choice of the government