STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. JAYANT KUMAR DAFTARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE First respondent while working as Assistant Sales Tax officer (later on designated as Commercial Tax Officer under Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994) sought voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years of qualifying service as provided under Rule 42 of M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short the Rules') with effect from 1.4.1993. After his retirement, his pensioner/ claims were not settled by the Department. The Department withheld the pensionery benefits payable to the first respondent on the ground that departmental enquiry initiated against him while he was in service was still pending; that a crime was registered against him under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and his retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was also irregular.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the action of the Department, the first respondent instituted O.A.No. 84/2000 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal at Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal having opined that there was no justification to withhold the pensionery benefits of the first respondent, by its order dated 19.1.2001 allowed the O.A. filed by the first respondent and held that the first respondent, is entitled for interest on the amount of all retiral benefits given to him except the amount of G.P.F. on 6% per annum after two months of his retirement till the date of payment. At this stage itself, it needs to be noticed that by the time the Tribunal passed the impugned order, the proceedings initiated against the first respondent came to an end and on such conclusion of the proceedings, it appears that the Department paid retiremental benefits to the first respondent. In the circumstance, the only contention urged before the Tribunal was that the first respondent is entitled to interest on delayed payment of retrial benefits. That is how the above order was passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable force in the submission of the learned Government Advocate. There is no controversy between the parties that when the first respondent was permitted to retire under Voluntary Retirement Scheme w.e.f. 1.4.95 the departmental proceedings and other proceedings referred to above were pending. Sub-rules (1) & (2) of Rule 9 of the Rule read as follows: