ORDER
Heard on IA No.6281/2023, which is an application for disposal of the writ petition in view of subsequent developments. The petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents regarding non-payment and withholding the entire amount of gratuity, leave encashment, family benefits fund (FBF), GIS etc on account of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was superannuated from service on 28.02.2018 and after his retirement, charge sheet was filed in the criminal case. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case, which has been filed as Annexure P/6.
It is argued that the withholding of retiral dues on the ground of
1
registration of a criminal case on the date of retirement is contrary to the provision of Rule 9 of MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred as the Rules,76) and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Prahlad Amarchiya Vs. State of MP and Ors passed in WP No.8514/2023 dated 10.03.2016 affirmed by Division Bench in WA No.153/2014 dated 10.04.2017 and also in the case of Ramlal Malviya Vs. State of MP and Ors passed in WP No.3173/2016 dated 16.03.2017 affirmed by the Division Bench in WA No.243/2017 dated 15.09.2024, wherein it has been held that the word "Judicial Proceeding" under Rule 9 of Rules 76 has been interpreted that the 'judicial proceeding' shall be treated to be pending on the date of superannuation only when the chalan is filed in the criminal case and not mere registration of FIR or pending investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise, the petitioner has been acquitted in the said criminal case during the pendency of the petition, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the entire pension and other retiral dues with interest.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state supports the order and submits that the Lokayukt received a complaint on 03.02.2017 from one Mahipal and FIR was registered on 09.02.2017. On the date of retirement, a criminal case was pending therefore, the petitioner was paid a provisional pension at 90% as per Rule 64 of Rules 76. The charge sheet was filed in the said case on 11.05.2018. To bolster his submission he relied on the judgment by this Court in the case of Amrit Rao Mukut Rao Survey vs. State of M.P. 1999 (1) M.P.L.J. 105 which has not been taken into consideration in the
2
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
aforesaid subsequent judgments, wherein a contrary view was taken, therefore, the aforesaid judgments are 'per incuriam' in the light of the judgment passed by the full bench in the case of Jabalpur Bus Operators Association and Ors vs State Of M.P. And Anr reported in 2003 1 MPLJ
513.
Since the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, admittedly the petitioner is entitled for full pension and retiral dues, therefore, it would be only an academic exercise to delve into the said issue. The same is left open for consideration in an appropriate case. In view of the aforesaid the respondents are directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner and to pay him retiral dues within the period of two months from the date of filing of a copy of the order passed today. The petitioner shall be paid the retiral dues alongwith 6% interest from the date of next date of his retirement i.e. 28.12.2018. In case, if the retiral dues are not paid within the aforesaid period as directed by this court, the aforesaid amount shall carry 9% interest.
With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed and disposed off.
Sourabh
3