Madhya Pradesh HC Questions State For Delaying Retired Lokayukta Member's Family Pension Inspite Of Amendment Made In Rules

In a plea for grant of family pension of Lokayukta members, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday questioned the State for not examining the petitioners' case in respect of amendments made to the Rules under the state Lokayukta Act, noting that the pendency of the plea could not have been a reason for not taking action. 

In doing so, the court directed the respondents to take a decision in view of the amendments made in the Rules framed under M.P. Lokayukta Evam Deputy Lokayukta Adiniyam 1981.

The court was hearing a plea moved by certain petitioners who had said that family pension had not been fixed for the period when the petitioners were Lokayukta in spite of the fact that provision in the relevant law was available. On September 30, the counsel for petitioners had submitted that a clarificatory amendment was carried out on February 25, 2022 in the Rules framed under M.P. Lokayukt Avem Deputy Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981, clarifying that former Lokayukt and Deputy Lokayukt would be entitled to family pension for the services rendered on the said posts.

After hearing the matter for some time a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf in its order dictated, “Deputy Advocate General submits that on account of dependency of the subject petitions, the effect of amendment dated 25.02.2022 in the Rules framed under M.P. Lokayukta Evam Deputy Lokayukta Adiniyam 1981, was not examined. We note that there is no embargo on the respondents, considering the effect of the amendment to the rules on the case of the petitioner, merely on account of the pendency of the present petitions. So, accordingly, respondents are directed to take a decision...The respondent shall take a decision. It shall pass a consequential order in view of the amendment in the rules. And shall also take into account the decision of this court, dated 03.09.2024 in WP No. 13294/2007. As also, order dated 09.12.2014 in WP No. 896/2014.”

During the hearing on Thursday, the Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submitted before a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, “In this case, the rules have been amended and now provision has been made for grant of application.”

The court then orally asked, “That is what you said on 30th September?”. To this the deputy advocate general said, “Yes, my Lord. So, I have sought instructions that those rules would be applicable as we would consider the case of the petitioners as per those rules, my Lord, these are my instructions, my Lord. As of now, after the amendment of the rules, because of the pendency of these Writ Petitions, the cases have not been considered. So, the cases will be considered.”

At this stage the court orally said, “That is unfair. That is seriously unfair on the part of the department. You come back and say 'rules have been amended, we will consider it'. That was on 30th September. And now you say because of the pendency of this petition, this has not been considered?”

The state's counsel replied, “For the first time on that date, I was given to understand by the petitioners...Kindly see that order, my Lord, 30th of September, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the rules have been amended and therefore I was directed to seek instructions.”

After the court was informed that the rules were amended on February 25, 2022 it orally said, “So, two years and ten months and they have not taken a decision on the rules?”.

When the counsel pointed to the pendency of the writ petition the high court said, “There was no embargo...pendency of the petition, you can always pass an order in favour of the petitioner. Nobody is going to object to it.”

At this stage the counsel for the petitioner said, “In fact, this issue was already concluded in earlier writ petition. Despite that, the rule was not required.”

The court said, “Anyways,let them take a final decision. We'll make it time-bound. We are conscious of it, Mr. Srivastava. Let them pass an order.”

Meanwhile the Deputy Advocate General submitted that, “In the first petition, the right would accrue only...As of now, there is no time has come of applicability or grant of pension. As of now, the petition, I would say the first petition is at least premature, because as of now, no occasion is there for grant of family pension, my Lord". 

To this the high court said,“All you have to do is look at the effect of it. You can come and say that as of now, it is not there. As and when cause arises, we will grant it. So, at least that issue will stand close. Why should they be forced to file another petition? This is pending since 2017.”

The court further said,“And it should also be considered at the time of considering, even in the absence of the amendment, whether they were entitled as per the Rule 8 of the rules. It was already there in the provision. And even there was no need to amend it".

The court further orally remarked that Rule 8 says that the Lokayukta and the Uplokayukta should be paid pension at the rates applicable in the case of the Chief Justice and judges of High Court respectively, in respect of which completed year of the services as Lokayukta and Uplokayukta. It said that the definition of pension is given in that rule of the High Court. And therefore it was covered. So, even in the absence of amendment, whether they were entitled or not, they should also be considered at the same time, the court added. 

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the only defence in return is that though the act provides, but the rules are silent, therefore respondents are not taking action. 

Addressing the respondents, Court said, “At the same time you consider this aspect also, whether even in the absence of the amendment in the rules, they were entitled or not.”

The matter is next listed on January 9, 2025. 

Case Title: P.P. Naolekar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP 7248/2017