Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Murari Ojha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17747
1 WA-1439-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 13th 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17747
2 WA-1439-2025
of respondent/ employee. For convenience sake, facts of W.A.
No.1492/2025 are taken into consideration.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17747
3 WA-1439-2025
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 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) ...................
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17747
4 WA-1439-2025
(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 [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]."
1 2 . 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17747
5 WA-1439-2025
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.
14. Another point raised by respondent/ employee was in respect of
erroneous calculation. Although that was not the subject matter of writ
appeal, but 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.
1 6 . 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17747
6 WA-1439-2025
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
VC
