Delhi High Court Orders MP Govt To Release Retiral Benefits Of Deceased IAS Officer
The Delhi High Court recently expressed shock at the conduct of Madhya Pradesh government in “victimising” a deceased IAS cadre officer by withholding his retiral benefits of almost 7 years.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that the officer was first victimized back in the year 2000, when he was misallocated Chhattisgarh cadre upon reorganization of MP.
Thereafter, the State continued to “repeatedly” victimise him by not assigning him duties after reallocation to MP; improperly refusing to accept his joining; withholding his salary and other emoluments for the period he was kept out of job due to wrong allocation (until Supreme Court intervention); denying him retiral benefits for the said period (from 03.11.2000 to 11.09.2007).
“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,” the judges remarked.
The Court was informed that the State had withheld the officer’s pension in the guise of a recovery notice issued over alleged unauthorized occupation of government residential house during the period he was kept out of job.
After his demise in 2022, the officer’s brother was pursuing the litigation.
Since CAT had ruled in favour of the officer, the State approached the High Court in writ jurisdiction— contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate Rule 19-C of the All India Services (Death-cumRetirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 which mandates clearance of all Government dues before the date of retirement, including rent for unauthorized occupation of Government accommodation, as a pre-condition for release of the retiral benefits.
It was argued that the now deceased officer owed huge amounts due to his unauthorized occupation of Government premises, therefore, a No Dues Certificate was demanded from him.
The officer’s brother on the other hand contended that since the period in-between had been regularized by the State itself, by treating the same as ‘necessary waiting period’, the officer was entitled to Government accommodation for this period, and the demand for damages from him is not sustainable.
Agreeing, the High Court 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.”
It added that State’s action was arbitrary and vexatious, which clearly violated the deceased officer’s Fundamental Rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.
As such, the State was directed to release the officer’s entitlements after deducting admitted dues of 7,63,700/-.
Appearance: Mr.Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. (AAGMP) with Mr.Sarad Singhania & Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Advs for Petitioner; Respondent no.1/Mr.K.M. Shukla in person with Mr.Kumar Dushyant Singh, Mr.Vedansh Anan, Advs. Mr.Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Kushagra Kumar, Mr.Amit Kumar Rana, Advs. for Respondent/UOI
Case title: State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13936/2024
