- (1.)Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 27/12/14 passed by respondent no.4 i.e. Civil Surgeon-Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Sidhi M.P. By the impugned order petitioner was superannuated on 31/10/2014. Lokayukt has initiated a trap case against the petitioner and therefore he was not paid full pension amount. Petitioner was paid only 50% of the pensionary benefits looking to the seriousness of the offences alleged against him.
(2.)The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents cannot withhold or withdraw the pension of the petitioner without there being any sanction order from Governor. Respondents are authorised to pay provisional pension to the government servant against whom departmental or judicial proceeding is pending. In view of Rule 9 and Rule 64 it is averred by the petitioner that impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Petitioner ought to have been paid 90% of the pension amount. Petitioner has preferred a representation to respondent no.2 to grant him gratuity, leave encashments and other benefits which is pending for consideration. Challan against petitioner has been filed by the Lok Ayukt on 23.01.2015 ie. after his retirement.
(3.)Respondents had filed a reply to the writ petition and it is stated that the contention of the petitioner is baseless and petition deserves to be dismissed. Petitioner was trapped on 04.10.2014 and he was superannuated on 31.10.2014. Since case was registered against the petitioner before his retirement therefore petitioner's retirement dues were not paid and only 50% of the retiral dues were paid. It was further submitted that case of petitioner is not similar to that of Ramlal Malviya. Counsel appearing for respondent also argued that Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 58/2017 held that Governor act on the advice of Council of Minister except in matters which is exclusively to be exercised by him in the description. The power as to whether pension of an employee should be stopped or not is not a matter which fall within his exclusive discretion, therefore, no error can be found in stopping the pension of the petitioner.