Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Renu Bhatnagar, Delhi High Court
Repeatedly Victimized Even After Death: Delhi High Court Directs MP Govt To Release Retiral Dues Owed To Late IAS Officer
|A Writ Petition was preferred by the M.P. State, challenging the Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Madhya Pradesh Government to release the retiral dues owed to the late IAS (Indian Administrative Services) Officer.
A Writ Petition was preferred by the M.P. State, challenging the Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar remarked, “This case presents a sad and shocking state of affairs, a disturbing pattern wherein an officer was being repeatedly victimized, not only after his superannuation but also after his death.”
Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi appeared for the Petitioner while Respondent K.M. Shukla appeared in person.
Facts of the Case
The Respondent’s brother was an IAS Officer of the 1974 batch. He was initially allotted the Madhya Pradesh Cadre in the erstwhile larger State of Madhya Pradesh. From 1986 to 1996, he served in Bhopal and later, between 1996 and 2000, he was appointed as a Member of the Board of Revenue in Gwalior. Following the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, the larger State of M.P. was bifurcated into the State of M.P. and the State of Chhattisgarh. The Central Advisory Committee (CAC), based on documents provided by the M.P. Government, allocated the Chhattisgarh cadre to the brother of the Respondent through a Notification issued by the Government of India. Being aggrieved, he submitted a representation to the Central Government and the State Government to change his allotment to the M.P. cadre.
Meanwhile, he did not join the Chhattisgarh cadre and continued making representations to the authorities. His representation was rejected after almost six years, and hence, he submitted a review against the same. His request was accepted and he was reallocated to M.P. cadre. He submitted his joining report before the competent authority but he was not assigned any duties by the State. Thereafter, he approached the CAT and his Application was allowed. This was challenged by the State before the M.P. High Court, which held the decision in favour of the Respondent’s brother. The State filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) and the Apex Court stayed the payment of salaries, however, the SLPs were dismissed.
Pursuantly, the Respondent’s brother was allowed to join as Member, Board of Revenue and he attained the age of superannuation in 2010. He retired from the service and then he approached the Tribunal seeking payment of his retirement benefits, including arrears, gratuity, provident fund, and group insurance, with 24% interest on delayed payments. He claimed that he submitted a representation in January 2019 against the 2016 recovery notice, disputing the contention of the Petitioner and recalculating the penal amount at normal rent as Rs.7,63,700/-. The Petitioner rejected the said contention and in 2022, the Respondent’s brother passed away. Hence, the case was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “It is not denied by the petitioner that during this period, the brother of the respondent no.1 would have been entitled to Government accommodation. Therefore, in our opinion, for the use and occupation of the premises during this period, damages could not have been claimed from the brother of the respondent no.1.”
The Court said that barring a few demand notices that have been placed on record, neither is there any order passed by the Competent Authority that has been placed nor is there any attempt shown by the Petitioner to evict the brother of the Respondent from the Government accommodation during the relevant period, or for making a recovery of the alleged damages from him.
“Be that as it may, there is also no order passed by the Competent Authority under the MPLP assessing such damages, that has been placed before us. For assessing such damages, a proper inquiry had to be conducted after giving a Show Cause Notice to the brother of the respondent no.1”, it also noted.
The Court was of the view that the notices referred to by the Petitioner are administrative in nature and do not satisfy the requirement of adjudication after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing and bar of jurisdiction under the MPLP shall therefore, not be attracted in the facts of this case.
“Significantly, it was only by the demand notice dated 18.04.2016, that is, almost six years post the superannuation of the brother of the respondent no.1, that a demand of Rs.1,22,89,799/- was raised against him. The period of demand is from 14.08.1986 till 01.02.2012. As noted, the same makes no reference to any order passed by the competent authority under the MPLP. The learned Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, has rightly set aside this demand by applying the principles of Rafiq Masih (supra). The petitioner's argument that circumstances beyond their control prevented demand being raised earlier, is also not sustainable given that the alleged unauthorized occupation spanned decades during active service”, it added.
The Court further remarked that as the payment of the retiral benefits of the brother of the Respondent had been unauthorizedly withheld by the Petitioner, the directions for releasing the same, along with interest, have also been rightly passed by the Tribunal.
“Reliance in this regard, on Rule 19-C of the AIS Rules also cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, on the date of superannuation of the brother of the respondent no.1, there were no dues owed by him. In fact, it was due to the pendency of the SLP, that the petitioner did not process the retirement benefits and it was only after the dismissal of the SLP that an Order dated 13.11.2015 was passed regularizing his period of service and thereafter, the salary due and the retiral benefits were computed and informed to the learned Tribunal along with an affidavit dated 02.05.2016”, it added.
The Court concluded that the Respondent’s brother in his representation of 2019, admitted that he owed Rs. 7,63,700/- on account of his occupation of the Government premises and this amount shall, therefore, be adjusted by the Petitioner against the dues owed to the brother of the Respondent no.1.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition and directed the Petitioner to release the retiral dues owed to the Respondent’s brother within eight weeks.
Cause Title- State of Madhya Pradesh v. K.M. Shukla & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4958-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, Advocates Sarad Singhania, and Shashank Shekhar.
Respondents: CGSC Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Advocates Kumar Dushyant Singh, Vedansh Anan, Kushagra Kumar, and Amit Kumar Rana.