Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by the aggrieved brother of a late IAS officer challenging the judgment dated 30-4-2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (‘the Tribunal’), Navin Chawla, J*, while upholding the order of the Tribunal directed the State of Madhya Pradesh (‘the petitioner’) to release the retiral dues withheld by them observing that the late IAS officer was the victim of arbitrary and vexatious actions of the petitioner.
Background
Respondent 1’s late brother, an IAS officer of the 1974 batch was allotted the Madhya Pradesh (MP) Cadre. Following the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, which split the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh into Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, the Officer was allocated the Chhattisgarh Cadre by the Central Advisory Committee (CAC).
Representation made by the Officer to request change in his allocation to MP Cadre was rejected almost 6 years after the said representation was made. However, upon review, Union of India (‘Respondent 2’) approved the transfer of the officer to the MP Cadre via a notification in 2007. The petitioner made several representations opposing the said notification and accordingly did not implement it.
Aggrieved by the actions of the petitioner, the Officer filed an application in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Bench, wherein it was held that the actions of the petitioner in not implementing the 2007 notification was illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. The decision of the CAT was challenged in the Madhya Pradesh High Court by the petitioners. The said High Court upheld the CAT order and directed the petitioners to pay the salary and other emoluments for the time-period when the Officer was kept out of service due to incorrect allotment.
Subsequently, he was appointed as a Member of the Board of Revenue, Gwalior in 2009 and he retired from service in 2010.
The payment of salaries to the Officer for the period of 2007-2009 i.e. from date of notification to date of actual appointment was stayed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 26-5-2009. However, in 2015, via an order passed by the petitioner, the period of 2000-2007 i.e. when the Officer was out of work, was treated as necessary waiting period and payment for the same was sanctioned accordingly.
In 2016, the Officer filed an application seeking the payment of retirement benefits, including arrears, gratuity, provident fund and group insurance with 24 per cent interest on delayed payments . However, the petitioners contended that the delay in payment was due to the arrears accrued owing to unauthorised occupation of government guesthouse and they issued a recovery notice to the Officer to submit a No Dues Certificate regarding payment of dues to the tune of Rs 1,22,89,799. The Officer admitted to only Rs 7,63,700 in arrears which was subsequently rejected in 2019.
The present petition was filed challenging the order dated 30-4-2024 order passed by the Tribunal which directed Respondent 2 to pay all pending retirement dues like gratuity, leave encashment etc along with interest for the period of delay. The Tribunal further ordered that such payment would not be linked to any alleged outstanding arrears owed by the Officer.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court upheld the 2024 order of the Tribunal directing the release of all retirement dues owed to the Officer. The Court observed that gross injustice had been done with the Officer wherein he was repeatedly victimised even after his death. Beginning from his allotment to the Chhattisgarh cadre because of incorrect information supplied by the petitioner, to withholding of retiral dues on grounds of arrears of rent, the Officer has been made a victim of arbitrary and vexatious actions of the petitioner, which violated his fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The bone of contention in the present case was the arrears of rent accrued on the utilisation of government accommodation from the period of 1986-2012. On that note, the Court observed that the services of the Officer from the period of 2000-2009 stood regularised as payment of salary for the same had been ordered by the petitioner themselves. Upon appointment to Board of Revenue, Gwalior, the Officer discharged his duties until he attained the age of superannuation. Further, the petitioner had not denied that during this period, the Officer would have been entitled to Government accommodation. Therefore, the Court opined that the use of government premises during that period was justified and damages in respect of the same could not be claimed.
The Officer had, by representation, admitted to arrears amounting to Rs 7,63,700 in rent for use of government guesthouse, thus the Court ordered that the same be deducted from the payment of retiral dues owed to the Officer.
The Court ordered the payment of retiral dues along with interest accrued for the period of delay within eight weeks from date of passing or order.
[State of M.P. v. K.M. Shukla, WP (C) 13936 of 2024, decided on 12-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Navin Chawla
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Nachiketa Joshi, Senior Advocate (AAGMP); Sarad Singhania and Shashank Shekhar, Advocates
For the Respondent: Kumar Dushyant Singh, Vedansh Anan, Advocates; Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Central Government Standing Counsel with Kushagra Kumar, Amit Kumar Rana, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
