Retired Engineer wins pension case against State Govt due to lack of justification for benefit withholding.

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a retired Assistant Engineer, in a case against the State Government for non-payment of pensionary benefits. The State Government alleged financial irregularities by the petitioner, withholding his benefits due to claimed outstanding dues. However, the Court found insufficient justification for withholding the benefits, noting the absence of formal punishment or clarity on the nature of the claimed dues. The Court directed the respondents to clear the dues owed to the petitioner within 45 days from the date of the order.

---

---

Issues:
Non-payment of pensionary benefits to a retired Assistant Engineer by the State Government.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Engineer, was not paid pensionary benefits after his retirement on 31.07.2013, including gratuity, leave encashment, FBF, GIC, GPF. The petitioner made representations and filed RTI applications to inquire about the non-payment of his benefits. The State Government alleged that the petitioner had started projects without proper sanction, made payments from funds to contractors, causing a loss to the Government Treasury. An amount of Rs. 30,44,947 was claimed to be owed by the petitioner to the State Government, leading to the withholding of his pensionary benefits.

The respondents argued that the petitioner's actions led to financial irregularities, and recovery of the claimed amount was necessary. They provided details of various payments made by the petitioner for different projects without proper authorization. The respondents contended that the petitioner was aware of the reasons for withholding his pension, as multiple communications were sent to him without any response. They claimed that the recovery of dues was justifiable under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Pension Rules.

The Court examined the provisions of Rules 9, 64, and 65 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Pension Rules, which allow for the withholding or withdrawal of pension in cases where government dues are not cleared by the employee. The concept of ascertainable Government dues was discussed, including various types of dues that can be recovered from an employee's pension. The Court noted the absence of any departmental enquiry or formal punishment imposed on the petitioner, as well as the lack of clarity regarding whether the claimed amount constituted ascertainable Government dues.

Consequently, the Court found that the respondents had not provided sufficient justification for withholding the petitioner's pensionary benefits. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondents to clear the dues within 45 days from the date of the order.

---