Madhya Pradesh High Court
Haribabu Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24856
1 WP-40949-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40949 of 2024
HARIBABU SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Smt. Smarti Sharma- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.K.Gupta- GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the
respondents to release his gratuity and pension alongwith interest from the
date of his retirement.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
was working as Assistant Director in the Office of Divisional Deputy
Commissioner, Janjatiya Karya Vibhag, Gwalior Division. He stood retired
on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 29/2/2024. His retiral dues have
not been settled on the ground that there are some proceedings pending
against him with the Lokayukt Organization.
3. In the reply, respondents have filed copy of memo dated 20/6/2024,
wherein, also it has been mentioned that a complaint has been registered
against the petitioner in the office of Lokayukt. From the reply filed by the
respondents, the only ground taken for withholding the retiral dues of the
petitioner is registration of aforesaid complaint with the Lokayukt
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24856
2 WP-40949-2024
Organization.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 9 of
M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "Pension Rules"), retiral
dues of a govt. servant can be withheld only when the departmental or
judicial proceedings are pending against him. It is her submission that
admittedly, there is no departmental proceeding pending against the
petitioner. So far as judicial proceedings are concerned, it can be said to be
pending against the petitioner only when cognizance of the complaint is
taken by the concerned Magistrate. It is her submission that admittedly, in
the present case, no cognizance has yet been taken by the Magistrate and
therefore, no judicial proceedings can be said to be pending against the
petitioner. She, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get his
retiral dues.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the State justified the action of the
respondents in withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner. He referred to
the provisions of Rule 64 of the pension Rules which provides for
withholding of the pension/gratuity of a govt. employee, in case of pendency
of departmental or judicial proceedings.
6. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
7. Provision of Rule 9(6) of the Pension Rules are clear and
unambiguous. It is only when a departmental or judicial proceeding is
pending against a govt. servant, his retiral dues can be withheld. As per Rule
9 (6)(b)(i), judicial proceeding can be said to be pending against a govt.
servant only when on a criminal complaint, cognizance is taken by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24856
3 WP-40949-2024
concerned Magistrate.
8. The aforesaid view of this Court finds support from coordinate
Bench decision of this Court in the case of Aditya Mishra Vs. State of M.P.
& Ors., reported in 2014 (2) MPLJ 59, wherein, in para 5, this Court has held
as under:-
"Thus, it is to be seen that the departmental proceedings shall be
deemed to be instituted on the date the charge-sheet is issued to
the employee concerned, whether before his retirement or after the
retirement. Similarly, the judicial proceedings shall be deemed to
be instituted in the case of criminal proceedings on the date when
the challan is filed in the Court in the shape of a final report of the
police officer. In none of the other cases, pension can be withheld
or stopped. Under the aforesaid Rule, there is no provision made
for withholding of the pension or delaying the payment of pension
to a retired officer. In view of this, justification shown by the
respondents in their return for not releasing the pension and retiral
dues to the petitioner on the date when he retired or soon
thereafter or even granting him the provisional pension and
gratuity, that a complaint was being enquired into against him,
cannot be accepted. Since mere recording of a complaint against
the petitioner and starting an investigation by the Economic
Offences Bureau or Lokayukt was not constitution of a criminal
proceeding against the petitioner in terms of the definition of
judicial proceedings indicated in Rule 9(6) of the Rules aforesaid,
no right was available to the respondents to delay the payment of
retiral dues of the petitioner. Apparently this was done only
because of lodging of complaint against the petitioner in the office
of the Lokayukt where a complaint case was registered against
him. As soon as the same was closed, information was given to the
respondents, the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner was
made."
9. Another coordinate Bench of this Court taking a different view in
the case of Chandramani Tripathi Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., reported in
2020 (4) MPLJ held that the date of making complaint or report to the police
is the date to be treated as the date of institution of judicial proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24856
4 WP-40949-2024
However, the decision rendered in the case of Chandramani Tripathi (supra)
has been held to be per incuriam by another coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Dr. Rajeshh Kothhari Vs. Urban Administration and Housing
Department & Ors., (W.P.No. 11771/2020) , wherein, after referring to the
Division Bench decision rendered in the case of General Administration
Department and Anr. Vs. Prahlad Amarchy (W.A.No. 153/2017) and Ramlal
Malviya vs. Cooperative Department & Ors. (W.A.No. 243/2017) , held in
para 16 and 17 as under:-
"16. On close scrutiny and critical analysis of the aforesaid
judgments, it is noticeable that in the judgment, passed by learned
Single Judge in the case of Chandramani Tripathi (supra), the
judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Prahlad
Amarchya (supra) (W.A. No.153/2023) and Ramlal Malviya vs.
State of M.P. & Ors. ( WA No.243/2017 ) has not been
considered. Though the judgment passed by learned Single Judge
in the case of Prahlad Amarchya (W.P. No.8514/2023) has been
referred, but not been discussed. Further the judgment of Division
Bench in the said was not brought to the notice of the Single
Judge. Therefore, the view taken by learned Single Judge in the
case of Chandramani Tripathi (supra), that the word 'judicial
proceeding' referred under Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of Pension Rules, 1976
would mean the criminal proceeding instituted on 'the date on
which the complaint of police report is made', is not a correct view
and is contrary to the view taken by the Division Bench in the case
of Prahlad Amarchya (supra) (WA No.153/2017) and Ramlal
Malviya vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (WA No.243/2017) . Therefore,
the judgments in the case of Chandramani Tripathi (supra) and
Prem Rao Chandelkar (supra) are held to be per incuriam.
17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the law as exists today in
respect of Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of Pension Rules, 1976 is that the word
'judicial proceeding' would mean the date on which the
cognizance is taken on the complaint or report of police officer
and not the date on which the complaint or report of police officer
is made."
10. In view of the aforesaid, it is a settled legal proposition that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24856
5 WP-40949-2024
judicial proceedings would deemed to have been instituted against the Govt.
servant on the date when the cognizance of the complaint is taken by the
concerned Magistrate.
11. From the reply filed by the respondents, it is apparent that apart
from the complaint registered against the petitioner with the Lokayukt
Organization, no progress has taken place so far. In other words, the
cognizance of the compliant against the petitioner has not been taken by the
Magistrate, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be
said that any judicial proceeding is pending against the petitioner.
12. Considering the aforesaid, the action of the respondents in
withholding the retiral dues of petitioner including pension/gratuity is not in
consonance with the provisions of Pension Rules. Accordingly, respondents
are directed to forthwith settle the retiral dues of the petitioner within a
period of 90 days from the date of communication of certified copy of this
order. Petitioner would also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the
aforesaid amount w.e.f. 1/3/2024 till actual payment.
13. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
JPS/-
