Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Krishna Murari Ojha on 13 August, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17747
1 WA-1492-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 13 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1492 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DR. KRISHNA MURARI OJHA
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General and Shri Sohit Mishra -
Government Advocate for the appellants/ State.
Shri Prashant Sharma and Shri D.P. Singh - Advocates for the respondent.
&
WRIT APPEAL No. 1439 of 2025
KRISHNA MURARI OJHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma and Shri D.P. Singh - Advocates for the appellant.
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General and Shri Sohit Mishra -
Government Advocate for the respondents/ State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy as both the appeals
arises out of the same judgment, these appeals are heard analogously and are
decided by a common order. W.A. No.1492/2025 is filed at the instance of
appellants/ State and W.A. No.1439/2025 is filed at the instance of respondent/
employee. For convenience sake, facts of W.A. No.1492/2025 are taken into
consideration.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17747
2 WA-1492-2025
2. I.A. No.5079/2025, an application seeking condonation of delay is filed
in Writ Appeal No.1439/2025 filed on behalf of the employee.
3. As per office note, the appeal is barred by 183 days.
4. On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application, I.A. is
allowed.
5. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. is closed.
6 . The Writ Appeal No.1492/2025 under Section 2(1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005 is
preferred by the appellants/ State being aggrieved by the order dated 7th August,
2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.6543/2013 to limited extent.
7. As submitted, the learned Writ Court directed appellants/ State to recover
20% of pension of respondent/ employee from the date of initiation of
departmental proceedings while relying upon the provisions as contained in clause
(c) of sub-Rule 4 of Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976
(hereinafter referred as Pension Rules).
8 . It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/ State that
clause (c) of sub-Rule 4 of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules moves in different factual
realm because it talks about those contingencies where an employee after being
retired faced departmental enquiry. In those cases, when departmental enquiry is
initiated after retirement of an employee then date of enforcement of recovery of
pension can be reckoned from the date of initiation of departmental enquiry but in
those cases where an employee was in service, departmental enquiry was
instituted and during pendency of departmental enquiry, employee stood retired,
implications are different. According to counsel for the appellants/ State, if this
analogy is accepted as advanced by learned Writ Court, then it would be difficult
to reckon the date of enforcement of recovery order because at that time, employee
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17747
3 WA-1492-2025
was receiving salary, not the pension. Therefore, in those cases where employee
was in the service and enquiry initiated and in the enquiry, if punishment is
inflicted of withholding of pension then date of enforcement would be the date of
retirement.
9 . Learned counsel for the respondent/ employee opposed the prayer.
However, reconciled with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
appellants/ State. He raised the doubt over the calculation made by the appellants/
State and quantum assessed. According to counsel, recovery has been made on
higher sum then the required recovery amount.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
11. This is a case where appellants/ State is taking exception to the order
dated 7th August, 2024 passed by the Writ Court on the ground of date of
enforcement. Rule 9 of the Pension Rules contemplates right of the Governor to
withhold or withdraw the pension. Rule 9 (4)(c) of Pension Rules for ready
reference is reproduced as under:-
" 9. Right of governor to withhold or withdraw pension:-
(1) ...................
(2) ..................
(3) .................
( 4 ) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on
attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any
departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where
departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a
provisional pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity as provided in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17747
4 WA-1492-2025
[rule 64], as the case may be, shall be sanctioned.
(a)................
(b)................
(c) If in the departmental proceedings final order is passed to
withhold or withdraw the pension or any recovery is ordered, the order
shall be deemed to take effect from the date of the institution of
departmental proceedings and the amount of pension since withheld
shall be adjusted in terms of the final order subject to the limit specified
in sub-rule (5) of rule 43]."
12. From perusal of aforesaid rule, it appears that it further contemplates
the contingencies where a government servant is retired on attaining the age of
superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial
proceedings are instituted. Proviso (a)(b)(c) of Rule 9(4) of the Pension Rules
appear to be inter-connected. Date of enforcement of order of punishment in the
present case would certainly have to be the date when employee attains
superannuation. If any other meaning is given then proviso (a), (b) and (c) would
stand at loggerheads. Rule 9(4)(c) and its proviso is meant for an employee who
stood retired.
1 3 . In the instant case, respondent/ employee was in service when
departmental enquiry was instituted. During pendency of enquiry, respondent
stood superannuated, therefore, recovery of pension would be reckoned from the
date when respondent/ employee attained superannuation i.e. 31/08/2013
(Annexure P/1) therefore, date of enforcement would be from September, 2013.
1 4 . Another point raised by respondent/ employee was in respect of
erroneous calculation. Although that was not the subject matter of writ appeal, but
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17747
5 WA-1492-2025
looking to the fact situation, respondent/ employee is directed to submit a
representation to the concerned department explaining the exact calculation and if
such representation is preferred then appellants/ employer/ State shall calculate the
exact amount and intimate the same to the respondent/employee by passing a
reasoned order explaining the basis for quantification of recovery so determined
by the Department. Needful be done at an expeditious note preferably within two
months from the date of passing of certified copy of this order.
15. If grievance of respondent/ employee still subsists then he shall be at
liberty to challenge the this order in accordance with law.
16. In view of the above discussions, Writ Appeal filed by the appellants/
State (W.A. No.1492/2025) stands allowed for limited extent with aforesaid
modification in the impugned order. Writ Appeal filed by appellant/ employee
(W.A. No.1439/2025) stands disposed of in above terms.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
VC
