Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baboolal Mahavar Koli vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27881
1 WP-42628-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 3 rd OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 42628 of 2025
BABOOLAL MAHAVAR KOLI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Anchan Pandey- learned counsel for the petitioner through video
conferencing.
Shri B.M. Patel- learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for following reliefs:-
"7.1 Direct the respondents to release full salary and
allowances for the suspension period instead of 50%.
7.2. Direct the respondents to release all pending retiral
benefits including G.P.F., G.LS., gratuity, and leave
encashment.
7.3. Direct the respondents to commence provisional
pension to the petitioner from 01.03.2024, in
accordance with Rule 64 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1976.
7.4. Declare that the offence in question does not
amount to grave misconduct, and therefore, pensionary
benefits cannot be withheld.
7.5. Grant any other relief(s) deemed just, proper, and
equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27881
2 WP-42628-2025
including cost of litigation."
2. It is seen that the petitioner was working as Time Keeper in Public
Health Engineering Department and stood retired from service w.e.f.
28/02/2024. While he was in service, he got involved in a criminal case for
the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 427/34 of IPC. Resultantly,
he was placed under suspension vide order dated 06/12/2017. Subsequently,
vide order dated 30/01/2019, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked.
3. It is further seen that the petitioner has been convicted for the
aforesaid offence vide judgment dated 19/11/2024 passed in S.T.
No.21/2022. He has challenged the said judgment before this Court in CR.A.
No.13294/2024 wherein the sentence has been suspended. The petitioner
now claims settlement of his retiral benefits on account of his retirement
w.e.f. 28/02/2024.
4. Since the petitioner has been convicted after his retirement, the
competent authority is now required to pass suitable order for settlement of
his retiral dues as also regarding payment of pension under Rule 9 of the
M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Needless to mention, so long as
such an order is not passed, respondents are also required to pay provisional
pension to the petitioner under the Rule 64 of the Pension Rules.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Krishna Sharma Vs. State
of M.P. & Ors. in W.A. No.875 of 2020 . However, the said case is not
attracted in the facts of this case inasmuch as in the case before Division
Bench, the order withholding pension was already passed whereas in the case
in hand no such order is passed. The learned counsel also placed reliance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27881
3 WP-42628-2025
upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Badelal Pathak Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors. in W.P. No.18341/2023 . The directions issued by this
Court in this case are required to be kept in mind by the Competent
Authority while passing the order in this case. The learned counsel then
relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Damde Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors. in W.P. No.20032/2020 . There is no dispute regarding
directions issued by this Court in this case. Infact, this Court has also
observed hereinbefore regarding entitlement of petitioner to get provisional
pension from the date of his retirement till passing of suitable order by
competent authority under Rule 9 of Pension Rules.
6. Since necessary order has yet not been passed by the respondents,
this petition is disposed off giving liberty to the petitioner to make
representation before the competent authority seeking payment of his retiral
dues. If such representation is made, the competent authority shall process
the matter for passing necessary order in accordance with law within a period
of 90 days' from the date of submission of representation by petitioner. The
ratio of this Court in the case of Badelal Pathak (supra) shall be kept in mind
while passing order.
7. With the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed off.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul
