Vyapam SIT chief Chandresh Bhushan in row with govt over ‘dues’

The Supreme Court has now directed that all Vyapam cases be handed over to the CBI for investigation. A 40-member team has been formed, and will reach Bhopal on Monday, the CBI said.

For the last 15 months, Bhushan has been writing letters seeking “family pension” as a retired up-lokayukta as well as leave encashment from the state government.

After the General Administration Department (GAD) denied both, he approached the Lokayukta and filed a complaint. While the Lokayukta normally takes up matters related to corruption, it has forwarded his complaint in service matters to the administration, asking it to respond.

The law department is yet to give its opinion.

The GAD believes Bhushan’s demands are unreasonable. “We have already communicated to him that he is entitled to encashment of maximum 300 leaves during his entire tenure, which he has already encashed as the high court judge. But since he has filed a complaint with the Lokayukta, we have now referred the matter to the law department for its opinion,” Deputy Secretary GAD, Rajesh Kaul, told The Indian Express.

Bhushan did not respond to phone calls or messages.

The SIT chief was earlier drawing family pension after retiring as HC judge. Kaul added that after his retirement as up-lokayukta, his pension had already been revised and there was no provision for another family pension.

The matter has a seen a series of communications between Bhushan, the Lokayukta office and various departments of the state government.

Bhushan first raised the demands before the GAD after retiring as up-lokayukta in January 2014. On February 2, a senior accounts officer with the MP Accountant General wrote a letter to the Deputy Secretary, GAD, copied to Bhushan, saying that under the rules, he was not eligible for family pension.

Subsequently, on March 6, Bhushan wrote two separate letters, accessed by The Indian Express, to the Lokayukta saying that since the administration had refused to consider his demands, it should take up the matter.

Noting that the “conditions of my service as up-lokayukta were same as those of a sitting judge of a high court”, he said: “A (HC) judge is entitled to leave equivalent of 1/4th of the time spent by him on actual service. It is further provided that if he is deprived of enjoying vacation then he will be further entitled to leave equivalent to double the period for which he was so deprived.”

“I had not taken any leave during my whole tenure and I had even worked for more than 26 days during the period of my vacation. Thus clearly I had more than 548 days (i.e. ½ of 2,192 days) leave on half allowances (or 274 days on full pay and allowances) to my credit at the time of my retirement as up-lokayukta. I had sought cash equivalent of leave salary for that leave to my credit. Till date it has not been paid to me.”

Urging the Lokayukta to act immediately, he wrote: “This is to humbly request that appropriate action in this respect may please be taken at the earliest.”

In another letter, he again drew similarities between the service conditions of an up-lokayukta and an HC judge and said that since an HC judge is entitled to family pension, he should also be given the same. “But surprisingly in the communication addressed by Deputy Secretary, GAD, from the office of Senior Accountant General of MP, signed by his senior Acct officer, it has been mentioned that no family pension was payable. Thus it was clearly against my service rules and needs to be corrected,” he wrote, adding that “suitable action may please be taken in this respect”.