The Delhi High Court has strongly criticized the Madhya Pradesh government for denying retiral benefits to a deceased IAS officer for nearly seven years, calling the situation “sad and shocking.”
"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 Court said.
A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar expressed dismay over how the officer was repeatedly wronged by the State. The matter began back in 2000, when the officer was misallocated to the Chhattisgarh cadre after the bifurcation of Madhya Pradesh. He later returned to the MP cadre but continued to face hostility.
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Flags SOP Ignorance as Key Cause Behind Flood of Runaway Couple Petitions
Despite the Supreme Court’s intervention, the State withheld his salary, refused to assign him duties, and denied retiral benefits for the period between 03.11.2000 to 11.09.2007.
Even after the officer passed away in 2022, his family, particularly his brother, had to continue the legal battle. The State attempted to justify non-payment of the benefits by citing a recovery notice for alleged unauthorized occupation of government accommodation during the said period.
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had ruled in the officer’s favor, but the State challenged it in the High Court, arguing that Rule 19-C of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 requires clearance of all dues before retirement.
It was contended that the officer had not obtained a No Dues Certificate, and the government claimed he owed large sums due to occupying the government house without authorization.
However, the officer’s brother argued that the State itself had regularized the disputed period as “necessary waiting period,” making the housing demand invalid.
“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,” the Court noted.
“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.”
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Refuses to Recognise TikTok as a Well-Known Trademark Due to Ongoing Ban in India
The Court held the government’s action to be “arbitrary and vexatious,” stating it was a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
In conclusion, the Court ordered the release of the officer’s retiral dues, after deducting the admitted amount of ₹7,63,700.
Case Title: State Of Madhya Pradesh v. KM Shukla & Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 13936/2024
