Lakhanlal Karotiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1300 MP

         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      W.P.No. 4695/2021
         (Lakhanlal Karotiya Vs. State of M.P. & others)
                              (1)

Gwalior, dated : 6/4/2021

      Shri Alok Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

      Shri Jitesh Sharma, G.A. for the respondent-State.

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, challenge has been made to the communication dated

15/10/2020 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no.6 to

Superintendent of Police, District Datia and Commandant 29 th

Batallion, SAF, District Datia to finalize the pension case of

the petitioner, with endorsement to stop the provisional

pension with immediate effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the

aforesaid impugned order/letter was issued, respondent nos 3

and 4, instead of finalizing pension case of the petitioner,

have stopped the provisional pension which was being paid to

him, without any rhyme or reason. He further contends that

the order is absolutely arbitrary and illegal as pension is

fundamental right of the petitioner and the same could not

have been stopped as per the whims and fancies of the

respondents. In such circumstances, respondents may be THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No. 4695/2021 (Lakhanlal Karotiya Vs. State of M.P. & others)

directed to restore the provisional pension of the petitioner

which was already being paid to him in accordance with M.P.

Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 without any delay.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate

opposed the prayer and submitted that return has been filed in

which it is stated that due to wrong calculation, petitioner has

drawn more than his salary, therefore, the department has

initiated recovery proceedings for excess amount paid along

with interest in the light of Apex Court judgment. In such

circumstances, no interference is warranted and the petition

deserves to be dismissed.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

It is an admitted position that provisional pension was

being paid to the petitioner and the same has now been

stopped without any justification. Moreover, the pension case

of the petitioner has not been finalized yet. In such

circumstances, the action of stopping the provisional pension

of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. As such,

respondents are directed to re-start payment of provisional

pension to the petitioner as per provisions of M.P. Civil THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No. 4695/2021 (Lakhanlal Karotiya Vs. State of M.P. & others)

Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 forthwith. They are further

directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner in the

light of order/communication dated 15/10/2020 (Annexure

P/1), within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt

of certified copy of this order in accordance with law.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

opinion on the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands

disposed of.

(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge (and)

ANAND SHRIVASTAV A 2021.04.08 14:53:33 +05'30'