Officer Was Repeatedly Victimized Even After Death | Delhi High Court Quashes Recovery Order, Directs Payment of Retiral Dues With Interest
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar held that a demand for Rs.1.22 crore raised by a state government against a deceased IAS officer was legally unsustainable and had been wrongfully used to withhold retiral benefits. The court directed the state to pay all dues along with interest and declared that no further recovery linked to the vacated demand could be made. The Division Bench disposed of the petition by the State Government, affirming the Central Administrative Tribunal’s judgement which had quashed the recovery notice and directed full disbursement of pending benefits. The Bench found that the state had acted arbitrarily in misallocating the officer to the wrong cadre, failed to comply with corrective notifications, and further delayed relief despite multiple binding orders. The Bench further stated that a portion of the officer's admitted liability for rent during his government accommodation occupation should be deducted from the dues, but the rest of the recovery stood invalid in law.
The present petition challenged a judgment dated 30.04.2024 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 1011/2016 titled Vinay Shukla through L.R. K.M. Shukla v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Tribunal quashed a recovery order and directed payment of pending retirement dues to the legal representative of the deceased IAS officer.
The late officer, Vinay Shukla, was an IAS officer of the 1974 batch initially allotted to the undivided Madhya Pradesh cadre. Between 1986 and 1996, he served in Bhopal, and from 1996 to 2000, he was posted in Gwalior as a Member of the Board of Revenue.
Following the bifurcation of Madhya Pradesh and the creation of Chhattisgarh under the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, a Central Advisory Committee (CAC) was constituted for the cadre allocation of IAS officers. Based on documents submitted by the Madhya Pradesh government, the CAC issued a Notification dated 31.10.2000 allocating Vinay Shukla to Chhattisgarh.
Aggrieved by the allocation, Shukla submitted a representation dated 05.11.2000 to change his allotment. He did not join the Chhattisgarh cadre and pursued a review. On being allowed to inspect documents submitted to the CAC, Shukla discovered that the state government had allegedly relied on false documents.
Upon supplementary review, the Union of India reallocated him to the Madhya Pradesh cadre by Notification dated 24.08.2007. Despite Shukla submitting his joining report on 12.09.2007, the state government did not assign him any duties and raised objections through representations and a personal note from the then Chief Secretary.
The Union rejected all such objections and upheld the reallocation. The state government, however, continued to resist compliance. Shukla was thus compelled to file O.A. No. 518/2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, which allowed the plea on 23.10.2008.
The state challenged this order before the Madhya Pradesh High Court by filing Writ Petition Nos. 13660/2008 and 15122/2008, and Shukla also challenged the 2000 allocation through W.P. No. 982/2009. All three petitions were disposed of by the High Court in a common order dated 02.04.2009 in favour of Shukla. The High Court criticized the state for non-compliance and directed consideration of salary for the period he was kept out of service.
The state escalated the matter to the Supreme Court through SLP Nos. 13585-87/2009. The apex court granted an interim stay on payment of salary from 2000 to 2007 but ultimately dismissed the SLPs on 27.10.2014.
On 13.04.2009, during the pendency of the SLPs, Shukla was allowed to join as Member, Board of Revenue, Gwalior, and retired on 31.07.2010. The state regularized his period of absence through orders dated 24.04.2009 and 13.11.2015, treating the same as compulsory waiting period.
However, the state did not release his retiral benefits, prompting Shukla to file O.A. No. 1011/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, seeking payment of retirement benefits including arrears, gratuity, provident fund, and leave encashment with interest.
In its reply dated 18.04.2016, the state cited outstanding dues related to unauthorized occupation of government guesthouses and accommodations by Shukla, and issued a recovery notice of Rs.1,22,89,799/- on the same date. The demand covered periods of alleged unauthorized stays from 1986 to 2012.
Shukla challenged the recovery, submitting a representation in January 2019 disputing the calculation and estimating actual dues at Rs.7,63,700/-. The representation was rejected on 31.08.2019. Shukla passed away on 12.06.2022. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. on 30.04.2024, granting relief to his legal heir.
The Division Bench recorded that "this case presents a sad and shocking state of affairs, a disturbing pattern wherein an officer was being repeatedly victimized, not only after his superannuation but also after his death."
The court noted that "the brother of the respondent no.1 was first victimized when he was initially misallocated the Chhattisgarh cadre on 31.10.2000." It was recorded that the petitioner-state had provided incorrect data leading to the wrongful allocation. Despite the Union's rectification through a Notification dated 24.08.2007, the state failed to act.
The judgment recorded: "Even this order was not complied with by the petitioner, which, instead, challenged the same before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur by way of a Writ Petition."
The Bench recounted the prolonged litigation, stating, "instead of complying with this order, the petitioner again chose to challenge the same before the Supreme Court."
The court noted: "the petitioner passed an Order on 13.11.2015, treating the period of absence from 03.11.2000 to 11.09.2007 as necessary waiting period, sanctioning pay and allowances." Nonetheless, the retiral benefits were still not released.
On the issue of recovery, the Bench stated: "It was at that stage that the petitioner contended that the retiral benefits had not been released… owing to unauthorized occupation of Government guesthouses…"
It noted that the state had issued demand notices only on 18.04.2016, long after Shukla's retirement. The Bench observed: "there is also no order passed by the Competent Authority under the MPLP assessing such damages, that has been placed before us."
The Bench also recorded: "Barring a few demand notices that have been placed on record, neither is there any order passed by the Competent Authority… nor is there any attempt shown by the petitioner to evict… or for making a recovery… during the relevant period."
Addressing the procedural legality, the court stated: "The notices referred to by the petitioner are administrative in nature and do not satisfy the requirement of adjudication after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing."
The Bench concluded: "The learned Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, has rightly set aside this demand by applying the principles of Rafiq Masih (supra)."
Rejecting the petitioner's reliance on Rule 19-C of the AIS Rules, the court held: "on the date of superannuation… there were no dues owed by him." It noted that retirement benefits were not processed due to the pending SLP and only later calculated by affidavit.
On the limited admission of dues, the Bench stated: "the brother of the respondent no.1, in his representation of 2019, admitted that he owed Rs.7,63,700/-… This amount shall, therefore, be adjusted."
The Division Bench ordered: "The petition is, therefore, disposed of with directions to the petitioner to release to the respondent no.1 the retiral dues owed to the brother of the respondent no.1, less Rs. 7,63,700/-, along with interest as directed by the learned Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from today."
It further held: "The directions for releasing the same, along with interest, have also been rightly passed by the learned Tribunal."
Rejecting the validity of the recovery demand, the court held: "the demand of Rs.1,22,89,799/- was raised against him almost six years post the superannuation… and makes no reference to any order passed by the competent authority under the MPLP."
Accordingly, the Bench confirmed that: "The learned Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, has rightly set aside this demand…"
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Senior Advocate (AAGMP) with Mr. Sarad Singhania and Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh and Mr. Vedansh Anan, Advocates; Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advocates for Union of India
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. K.M. Shukla & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4958-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 13936/2024
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Renu Bhatnagar
[Read/Download order]
