Jabalpur- The Madhya Pradesh High Court has expressed displeasure at the government’s failure to respond to the case for six years, in the case of a retired teacher. Justice Vivek Agarwal of the single bench saw the matter and was not happy at all with the government and hence fined the government Rs 10000. The court also ordered that if the response is not filed together with the fine, then the Directorate of Public Instruction commissioner will have to come personally to the court.
The case was presented by counsel S. D. Gupta on behalf of Sunita Singhai, a retired teacher at Kamla Nehru Girls Higher Secondary School Jabalpur. Gupta further submitted that at the time of the petitioner’s retirement, the petitioner was receiving a salary of Rs. 70,600. However, after three months of retirement, the Pension Authority issued an order which cut down her salary to Rs 65,500 and at the same time, asked her to pay Rs 4,51,000 as a kind of penalty.
During the hearing, the court noted that the respondents had been served with a notice in January 2019 asking them to give their accounts. Still, the department failed to submit any response even after six years of lapse. Therefore, the High Court was not satisfied with the government’s approach and fined the government with Rupees 10,000.
This case is an example of how the court pays attention to the time frame of the responses given by government departments. Thus, with this fine and the threat of further measures in case of non-fulfillment of the requirements set out by the court, negligence and negligence-related catastrophes can be prevented.
This case gives a clue on the problems that government retirees experience from the time they leave the service up to the time they are provided for by the government. This case should be a clue to the importance of prompt and effective action in such cases to avoid causing discomfort to retirees.
In addition, the court’s threat of wanting the Commissioner to come personally shows that the judicial branch does not take these failures lightly. It conveys a strong message that further negligence will not be allowed, and it will result in adverse consequences if the official duties and responsibilities are not fulfilled. The idea is that perhaps this will lead to more prompt and sensible actions in other similar cases.