1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 7.11.2017 passed by the Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Bhopal by which 50% of the gratuity amount, i.e., Rs. 4,70,429/- has been sanctioned and provisional pension has been fixed.

2. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for 100% gratuity amount and pension under the provisions of rules 9 (4) and 64 of M. P. Civil Services Pension rules after retirement from service.

3. Facts of the case in short are that the petitioner was retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2011 from the post of Executive Engineer in Urban Administration and Development Department. Before retirement he was on deputation with the Municipal Corporation, Indore. After retirement he filed the writ petition seeking release of pensionary dues, leave encashment, gratuity etc. By order dated 29.7.2013, Writ Petition No. 9070/2012 was allowed with a direction to the respondents to make payment of pensionary dues to the petitioner with interest @ 12.5% per annum. Thereafter the petitioner filed the Contempt Petition No. 115/2014 followed by another Contempt Petition bearing No. 429/2014. Finally, vide order dated 20.10.2014, respondents have withheld the gratuity amount and part of the pension due to pendency of two criminal cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act bearing Crime No. 27/2008 and 57/2010.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2014, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3650/2015. By order dated 11.5.2016, writ Court set aside the aforesaid order and directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's case afresh about release of gratuity amount in the light of rule 9 (4) and 64 of the Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. When the aforesaid order was not complied with, petitioner filed contempt petition No. 636/2016. During pendency of contempt petition, by impugned order dated 7.11.2017, the respondents have fixed the provisional pension i.e., Rs. 17,708/- per month and released 50% of the gratuity amount, i.e., Rs. 4,70,429/-. By order dated 13.11.2017, Contempt Case No. 636/2016 was also disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh writ petition in case he is still aggrieved in the matter, hence the present petition before this Court.

5. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that under sub-rule (4) of rule 9, the respondents can release the provisional pension and withdraw the death-cum-retiral gratuity in case of retired employee against whom retiral or judicial proceedings are instituted. Rule 9 (6) (b) of Rules, 1976 clarifies that the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in case of criminal proceedings on the date on which the complaint or report of the police officer of which the Magistrate takes cognizance. In the present case, the Magistrate took cognizance after the retirement of the petitioner, therefore the provisions of rule 9 (4) and rule 64 would not apply. In support of his contention, petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Ramlal Malviya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Appeal No. 243/2017) decided on 15.9.2017.

6. After notice, the respondents have filed the return by submitting that vide order dated 11.5.2016 passed in W. P. No. 3650/2015 this Court has held that as per co-joint rule 9 (4) and rule 64, the gratuity amount to the extent of 50% can be released to the petitioner taking into account the gravity of the charges leveled against him, therefore the respondents has rightly passed the order dated 7.11.2017 in compliance with the order passed by this Court. It is also alleged that before retirement of the petitioner, investigation had been started by the Lokayukt police under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption