Mohanlal Tamrakar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16561 MP

                           1                 WP No.24899/2023


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 7th OF OCTOBER, 2023
              WRIT PETITION No. 24899 of 2023
BETWEEN:-

MOHANLAL TAMRAKAR S/O SHRI KALURAM
TAMRAKAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O KALIKA NAGAR TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                               .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
      SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
      BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.    COMMISSIONER NARMADAPURAM DISTRICT
      NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)



3.    COLLECTOR   NARMADAPURAM      DISTRICT
      NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)



4.    TEHSILDAR, TEHSIL SUHAGPUR DISTRICT
      NARMADAPURAM (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SWATI ASEEM GEORGE- DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                                       2                WP No.24899/2023


      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relies:

"7.1. To Issue a writ of mandamus directed to the Respondents to make the payment of provisional pension to the petitioner within stipulated time along with arrears otherwise petitioner is in trouble to survive because he is old and sick whereas criminal would take time for its final disposal.

7.2. Any other relief deemed fit and proper this Hon'ble court kindly be granted"

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by judgment dated 17.11.2011 petitioner has been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and fine amount of Rs.5,000/- with default rigorous imprisonment of 1 year. Petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal No.23733/2011 and by order dated 07.12.2011 petitioner has been granted bail and his jail sentence has been suspended. However, by order dated 22.05.2012 passed by Collector, Narmadapuram services of petitioner have been terminated on the ground of conviction of petitioner.

3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that as per provisions of Rule 64 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, petitioner is entitled for provisional pension. Thus, petition has been filed seeking for abovementioned reliefs.

4. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is true that criminal appeal is a continuation of trial but since the presumption of innocence is removed from a convicted person, therefore, Rule 64 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 does not apply and the aforesaid question has already been decided by this Court in the case of Badelal Pathak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, in W.P. No.18341/2023 on 05.09.2023 as well as in the case of Mani Shankar Pyasi Vs. State of M.P. and others, decided on 29.08.2023 in W.P. No.21859/2023.

5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.

6. This Court by order passed in the case of Badelal Pathak (supra) has held that Rule 64(1)(b) of Pension Rules would apply when trial is pending where an element of innocence is attached to the accused. Once the trial has concluded and resulted in conviction of accused/delinquent officer and merely because an appeal against his conviction is pending in which the conviction order has not been stayed then for the purpose of Rule 64 of Rules, 1976, it cannot be said the judicial proceedings have not come to an end for the simple reason that petitioner has to face the disqualification attached to the conviction.

7. Therefore, once the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and merely because his sentence has been suspended, this Court is of considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled for pension. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of pension is hereby rejected.

8. However, it is directed that this order shall be subject to final outcome of Criminal Appeal No.23733/2011. If petitioner is acquitted in

Criminal Appeal No.23733/2011, then he shall be entitled to stake his claim afresh.

9. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that there are certain more dues have not been paid to petitioner, which are otherwise not liable to be forfeited.

10. Considered the submission made by counsel for petitioner.

11. The present petition has been confined to the ground of non- payment of pension. There is no averment as well as no prayer for release of any other dues. Accordingly, petitioner is granted liberty that if any other dues except GPF still have not been paid to petitioner, then he shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition for the said relief.

12. With aforesaid observations, petition is finally disposed of.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE vc

VARSHA CHOURASIYA 2023.10.09 14:27:35 +05'30'