Amarchand Verma vs State of M.P. and Others

Sanjay Yadav, J.

Heard.

Order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the District Eduction Officer, Jabalpur is being assailed vide this petition. Vide impugned order petitioner has been declined of the settlement of retrial dues of his wife Suman Verma, an Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School Manegaon, who died on 11.12.2010 due to poisoning. That on the basis of her dying declaration an offence u/s 306 of the IPC has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is thus facing prosecution in lieu of death of his wife.

Question is whether in the background of these facts, the petitioner would be entitled to receive the retrial dues in lieu of death of his wife.

Rule 47(11)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1976 provides for:

In case both wife and husband are Government Servants and are governed by the provisions of this rule and one of them dies while in service or after retirement, the family pension in respect of the deceased shall become payable to the surviving husband or wife and in the event of the death of the husband or wife, the surviving child or children shall be granted two family pension in respect of the deceased parents subject to the limits specified below, namely:-

(a) (I) ...

(ii) ...

(b) ...

(c) (I) if a person, who in the event of death of Government servant while in service is eligible to receive family pension under this rule, is charged with the offence of murdering the Government servant or for abetting in the commission of such an offence, the claim of such a person including other eligible member or members of family to receive the family pension, shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.

(ii) If on the conclusion of the criminal proceedings referred to in sub-clause (I) the person concerned:-

(a) is convicted for the murder or abetting in the murder of the Government servant such a person shall be debarred from receiving the family pension which shall be payable to other eligible member of the family from the date of death of the Government servant;

(b) is acquitted of the charge of murder or abetting in the murder of the Government servant the family pension shall be payable to such person from the date of death of the Government servant.

(iii) The provisions of sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (ii) shall also apply to the family pension becoming payable on the death of a Government servant after his retirement.

The aforesaid provision has been incorporated in the Rules 1976 as a matter of public policy based on principle of justice, equity and good conscience to prevent a person from accelerating the claim of family pension by murdering or for abetting in the commission of such an offence.

But whether a person who is charged of the abetment to commit suicide would be deprived in view of above provision would depend on the interpretation of the expression" for abetting in the commission of such an offence" which appears in clause (c) of sub-Rule 11 of Rule 47 of 1976. Whether the expression Rules "such" is confined to abetment in causing murder or expression would also include within it fold commission of an offence as heinous as murder.

Expression "such" takes its colour from the preceding word ''murder'', which being a heinous crime the involvement wherein of a person deprive him of family pension; expression "such", in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot therefore be confined only to abetment in committing murder but to a heinous crime. In this context reference can be had of the Note appended with Rule 8 of 1976 Rules. Rule 8 stipulates that future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under the Rules. The Note appended to Rule 8 stipulates that " The provision of the rule shall also be applicable of family pension payable under Rule 47 and 48. The authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the deceased Government Servant/pensioner immediately before the death or retirement from the service, as the case may be shall be the competent authority to withhold or withdraw any part of family pension".

In the case at hand, conduct of the petitioner in abetting his wife, a government servant, to commit suicide leading to his criminal prosecution, being not a good conduct has rightly been adjudged in declining his claim for settlement of family pension. For these reasons, the impugned order dated 3.9.2012 cannot be faulted with.

In the result petition fails and is dismissed.