Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guru Prasad Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30596
1 WP-40227-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 9 th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40227 of 2024
GURU PRASAD TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sousarkar - Government Advocate for the
Respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and
direct the respondents to pay the gratuity amount of the
petitioner as well as full family pension to the petitioner
within stipulated period with interest.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass any
such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
under the circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
involved in a case under Section 306 and 34 of I.P.C. while in service in
relation to suicidal death of his son-in-law in which his entire family was
implicated. During pendency of the criminal prosecution, he retired on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30596
2 WP-40227-2024
30.06.2024 from service. After retirement, the Gratuity of the petitioner was
withheld on the ground that the petitioner is facing criminal prosecution and
the said action was in terms of amended rule 64 of M.P. Civil Services
Pension Rules, 1976 as inserted vide amendment dated 29.05.2023 w.r.e.f.
12.12.1990.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that during
pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has been acquitted in the said
criminal case by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Badvah, District
Mandleshwar, M.P. vide judgment dated 20.05.2025 passed in
S.T.No.3/2023.
4. Now, since the petitioner has been acquitted, therefore, the present
petition is not being pressed on the grounds it was filed because the said
grounds have now been rendered redundant and as the sole impediment for
settlement of final pension and payment of Gratuity has been removed
therefore, it is prayed that now direction be issued to pay the gratuity and
final pension because the petitioner at present is only getting provisional
pension.
5. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that this Court
cannot pass any direction to pay pension to the petitioner and once the
grounds on which the petition has been filed are rendered redundant then the
only course open for this Court is to dismiss the petition and nothing else. It
is not open for this Court to take any subsequent event into consideration and
first this petition be dismissed and fresh petition can thereafter be filed for
claiming Gratuity and final pension and the Court is grossly overreaching its
limit in taking note of a subsequent event. Even though impediment may or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30596
3 WP-40227-2024
may not have been removed for payment of final pension and Gratuity but
since this subsequent event has taken place during pendency of the petition,
this Court is bound to first dismiss the petition and do nothing else.
6. It is further vehemently argued that the Department would now examine
whether the acquittal is on merits or on benefit of doubt and only if the
acquittal is on merits then, the Department will release Gratuity or final
pension. When asked by this Court to point out to any provision in M.P.
Civil Service Pension Rules which entitles the State to withhold Gratuity
even after acquittal in criminal case which has no relation to the service of
the employee, the State counsel first referred to Rule 8 and then referred to
Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Service Pension Rules and despite having made this
Court made wait for 10 minutes, he could not point out to any provision in
the Pension Rules which entitles the State to withhold the Gratuity even after
acquittal of the Govt. Servant in criminal case, moreso, when the criminal
case had no relation to services of the employee and was related to his
private life.
7. Consequently, this petition is disposed off directing the respondents to
settle the final pension of the petitioner so also the Gratuity as the
impediment in terms of amended Rule 64 has been removed upon acquittal
of the petitioner in Criminal Case on 20.05.2025.
8. Let the amount be paid within two months failing which, it will carry
interest @ 8% per annum from the date of acquittal of the petitioner till
actual payment.
(VIVEK JAIN)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:30596
4 WP-40227-2024
JUDGE
veni
