^t-^^-:^- ?wy : wvy^ ym.vf^ Brfe-^- ^"3S2 F}1^ ^y.^:..U:^ '"el5^%^l F^rfe0f£fra^. ^ '°- 5i'3tev^». ?-^y^/. l^^m^l '"", t..^^3.L/f^^" ^r.^-. yr^ f^% TSO^-O yr?R. ^09"0 y^T^f^ srte^T 3TFaf^F? 1985 qfl' ETrTr 19 ^ 3T=rPfr( 3Tr^^~ IT^ 1 '^v i/ 3fr^) q?r ?rrii ?wr q-Hr - ^. 5fr. Eir^ 3iro TiTf^^Tr^ ^rf^qfFH ^riTTPT ^t- 27, t^CT ^RT Tr^Rr^tr^ |w?Fft?pTe1| 2/ @[^_II-.f?3I^ - BTcfTWg' 3Tr?R ^rrr : ^rT^, PTN y^r?%^ ?4 rfr^rT ^T^rar •ffFfffwig' grr'IR TrWT JBT^ftW^ L—-.. "•1 "^.^ HlGHCOURTQFCHHATTJSQARHjBILASP Si^IGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRi ^iANSNDRA MOHAH SHRSVASTAVA.J. PETmONERl RESPONDENT: WRiT PETiTiON (S) N0.3428/2005 S.G. Dhabu Versus State of Chhaffisgarh FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER ON /&' SEPTEMBER^OIO /^E Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude ^-.^W^i .A .-». ^<.;:.-:: HiGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH : BiLASPUR Sinaie Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra IWohan ShnvastayaL.j, PiTiTLQNER RESPONDENT WRST PETSTiON fSl N0.3428/2GG5 S.G. Dhabu Versus State of Chatt'isgarh Present:N Shri P.R. Patankar, counsei for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate General along wlth Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panei Lav^yer for the State/respondent. ORDER (Passed on ..!.§^.September,2010) By this petition, petitioner has caJSed in question, iegality and vaticiity of order dated 5/9/2010 (Annexure P/5) by which the State of Madhya Pradesh has forfeited the pension of the petitioner on the ground of his conviction for commission of offence under Sectjon 7, 13(1)(d) Section 13(2) Protection of CorruptionAct,1S88. 2. Submission of tearned counsei for the petitioner is that the irnpugned order is iiiegai and without jurisdiction in as much as after retirement the authorifry to initiate proceedings and withhoid petision, exclusiveiy iies with the Govemor as provided under Ruie 9 of the M.P. Civii Service Pension Ruies,1976. St is aiso submitteci that once the appeai has been preferred and jaif sentences have been suspended, conviction couSd not be rnade basis for forfeiting pension. The third submission of learned counsei for the petitioner is that such proceedings couid not be drawn in respect of the incident prior to four years froin the date of Institution of proceedings. Leamed counsel for the petitioner piaced reijance • sm upon judgment in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahjii Datt Sharma and another. 1887 (2) SCC 173. State of iViaharasfra v. %S.H. MazumdaL (1988) 2 SCC 52 and State of U.P. and others v. R.C. rviisra. (20G711_§CC 898. 3. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that this petition against the respondent is not maintainable in as much as the petitioner retired from service on 30/6/1992. The impugned order dated 5/9/2000 has been passed by the State of M.P. Therefore, the petition against the State of Chhattisgarh is misconceived and not maintainabie. He further submite that the petitioner being a retired empioyee, any clalm concerning pension or any order of forfeiting of pension has to be deait with by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Siabiiity is also of the State of Madhya Pradesh only to the exdusion of the State of Chhattisgarh. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for the State is that a perusai of impugned order wouid show ttiat the order has been passed after giving due and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner consistent wth the provisions of Ruie 9(9) of Civii Service Pension Ruies, 1976 and after due approval of councii of ministei^ and therefore the order does not suffer frorn any iiiegaSity. 4. Before entering into the merite of the case, it is necessary to consider the objections with regard to the very maintainabiiity of the petition as raised by the respondents in their return. It is undisputed position that the petitioner had retired frorn Govemment semce on 30/6/1882. Since ihen, he had been getting pension. The impugned order was aiso passed by the State of M.P. on 5/3/20CX) i.e. before reorganisation ofthe State under M.P- ReorQanisation Act, 2000. The Division Bench of this Court jn W.P.No.135/2000, U.P. i^ahurkar and others v. -^f State of Chhattisgarh and others has examined the statutory scheme of Section 49 and Sixth Schedufe of M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 anct has heSd - 21. Section 48 read with para-2 of the Sixth Scheduie of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganizatson Act; 2000 provldes that the iiability in respect of the pensicn of offscers & empioyees serv'ing in connection with the affajrs ofthe existing State of Macihya Pradesh, who retired before the apposnted day but whose ciaim for pension are outstanding being that day shali be of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 49 of the Act, 2000 reads ss under :- 9f49. Pensions - The li&bifity of the exsstlr^ Srsfe of Madhya Pradesh in re^pect ofpensions shall paas to, or bs appoFthnoc! befween the suocsssor States ofModhya Pradesh and ChhaWsgarh in accordance with the provistons contamed m the Slxth Schedufe to this Act" "Para 2" of "The Sixth Schedute" of the Act, 2000 reads as und— of "Z Sub^ci to the Qdjusimenis, ihe liBbility In p&^sions of officers serying in connec^on with Vhe affairs of the existing Statc of Madhya Pm^sh who ^tlre or prowed or? /eave preparatory to retirernent before the appdnlsd day, but whose cia'ims for penslons are outsissndfng immediateiy before ihst day, shsll be th/e ifabifity of^se State ofMadhya Pmdesh". 22. The above quoted provisions of Section 49 read wiih para- 2 of the Sixth Schedute of ths Act; 2000 are unambiguQUs and ciear. !n the present case the iiabiiity to pay pro-rata pension arose on 25/02/1961 in the case of petitioners No.1 and 3 and on 6/6/19SO in the case of petitioner No.2, when thoy resigned froni the services of the State of Madhya Pradesh. As per the provlsions stated above, this IsabilEty is of the State of Madhya Pradesh l.e. Respondent No.1 to make payments of pro-rata pension to the petitloners." 5. in this petition, though the petitioner has chaitenged the order passed by the State of M.P. on 5/9/2000, the State of M.P. has not been made a party though this petition was fiied after appointed date i.e. 1/11/2000. There is no materiai on record to show that the iiability in respect of payment of pension or other Jiabiijty arising therefrom have been now fastened upon the State of Chhattisgaiti under any order, decision or adjustrnent between the State of M.P. and C.G. ^s .?'• ^." (i 1 Dyypsi 6. in view of the aforesaid discussion, this pet'rtion suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. The petition is tiierefore dismissed however reserving Siberty to tiie petitioner to fiie fresh petition for redressal of his grievance in accordance with Saw. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude