Naresh Kumar Gupta vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 - Section 5 - High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 - Section 17A(3) - Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982 - Rule 8(A) - Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity - Entitlement of statutory officers to gratuity when service conditions are linked to Central statutory acts - Omission of a specific rule in State service rules is irrelevant if the governing Act mandates that benefits be as admissible under the High Court Judges Act - Previous receipt of gratuity upon retiring as a High Court judge does not bar the entitlement to separate gratuity for subsequent service as a statutory officer. (Paras 25-33)

(B) Legislative Shift - An amendment changing the basis of allowances and pensions from "as may be prescribed" to "as are admissible" under Central Acts (such as the High Court Judges Act) removes the dependency on rules framed by the State government and establishes a direct statutory right based on the Central legislation. (Paras 26-27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, former judges of a High Court, served as the Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt of a State. Upon their retirement from these statutory offices, the auditing authority declined the payment of gratuity. The denial was based on two grounds: first, that there was no provision for gratuity in the State's service rules following the omission of Rule 8(A), and second, that the petitioners had already received the maximum gratuity ceiling applicable to High Court judges during their prior retirement from the judiciary.

Findings of Court:
The court found that a 2004 amendment to the governing Adhiniyam shifted the determination of service conditions, salaries, and pensions from State-prescribed rules to the provisions of the Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, and the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. Under Section 17A(3) of the High Court Judges Act, 1954, the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity is explicitly provided. Therefore, the petitioners were entitled to this benefit regardless of the omissions in State rules or previous payments received in their capacity as judges.

Issues: Whether death-cum-retirement gratuity is payable to the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt in the absence of a specific provision in the State's service rules, and whether the receipt of gratuity as a High Court judge precludes further payment for service as a statutory officer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the legislative intent shifted from a delegated power of the Governor to a statutory mandate linking benefits to Central Acts. Consequently, the High Court Judges Act, 1954, governs the entitlement. Since the Central Act provides for gratuity, the lack of a corresponding rule in the State rules is an erroneous basis for denial. Furthermore, service as a statutory officer is distinct from service as a judge, entitling the officer to separate retirement benefits.

Result: Petitions allowed; petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity for service rendered as Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt, to be paid within 8 weeks with interest @ 7% per annum.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Former High Court judges serving as Lokayukt/Up-lokayukt claim gratuity for that service — Denial by PAG citing no provision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Petitioners: gratuity part of pension under HC Judges Act, separate service entitles separate gratuity. Respondents: no specific rule, ceiling already paid. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )

3. Petitions allowed; petitioners entitled to Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity for service as Lokayukt/Up-lokayukt, irrespective of previous gratuity, with interest. (Para 33 , 34 )

4. Whether gratuity is payable to Lokayukt or Up-lokayukt in absence of specific provision in the Adhiniyam or Rules?

Yes, after the 2004 amendment, conditions of service are governed by the HC Judges Act, 1954, and Section 17A(3) provides for gratuity, so omission of Rule 8A does not affect entitlement. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )

5. Whether prior receipt of gratuity as a High Court judge bars separate gratuity for service as Lokayukt or Up-lokayukt?

No, the service as Lokayukt or Up-lokayukt is independent, so petitioners are entitled to gratuity for that service irrespective of the amount already received as judges. (Para 34 )

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Sachdeva, C.J.

1. This order will govern the disposal of Writ Petition No.18260/2024 and Writ Petition No.38596/2024 as common issues are involved in both the petitions.

2. Petitioner in W.P. No.18260/2024 retired as a Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 30.06.2017. Thereafter on 18.10.2017, he was appointed as Lokayukt of the State of Madhya Pradesh, from where he retired on 10.03.2024.

3. Petitioner in W.P. No.38596/2024 demitted the office of High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 27.06.2016 and was appointed as Up- Lokayukt on 28.06.2016 of the State of Madhya Pradesh, from where he retired on 27.06.2022.

4. Both the petitioners rendered services as Lokayukt and Up- Lokayukt in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Secretary, Lokayukt Office, Bhopal forwarded their respective pension cases to Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department (GAD for short), State of M.P., being the Nodal Department for Lokayukt Organization and GAD after obtaining due approval and order from the Governor for payment of Pension and Gratuity to the petitioners forwarded the case of the petitioners to the Principal Accountant General (PAG for short), with a direction for payment of amount of Pension and Gratuity to the petitioners on respective dates, however, PAG declined to pay the amount of Gratuity by impugned letter dated 13.06.2024 on the ground that there is no provision for payment of Gratuity to Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt in Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt Adhiniyam,1981 (in short “Adhiniyam,1981”) or in Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982 (in short “Rules, 1982”) and, therefore, no Gratuity was payable to the Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt. Second reason assigned by PAG was that the petitioners had already received the amount of Gratuity at the time of demitting office of Judge of High Court and there was a ceiling of Rs, 20,00,000/- for a Judge of High Court, therefore, no additional amounts towards Gratuity was payable to the petitioners.

5. Both the Petitioners have assailed communication dated 13.06.2024 on the grounds inter alia that the appointment as Lokayukt or Up-lokayukt cannot be treated as continuation of service of a Judge of High Court and, therefore, the contention of PAG that as the Gratuity amount was paid to the petitioners at the time of demitting the office of Judge of the High Court, they was not entitled for additional Gratuity is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Petitioners contend that after demitting the office of a High Court Judge they rendered services to the State of Madhya Pradesh as Lokayukt or Up-lokayukt respectively and therefore they were entitled to payment of Gratuity separately.

6. Petitioners further contend that once the State Government had already considered the matter and approval was granted by the Governor directing payment of Gratuity to the petitioners, the PAG had no authority to deny payment of Gratuity to the petitioners and the action of the PAG was contrary to provisions of law. Petitioners further contend that the denial by the PAG on the ground that after omission of Rule 8(A), there is no provision in the Rules, 1982 to make the payment of gratuity and thus petitioners were are not entitled for gratuity, is erroneous. It is submitted that definition of “Pension” in section 2(1) (gg) of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the HC Judges Act, 1954), which is applicable to Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt, the expression pension includes Gratuity also.

7. It is further contended that earlier Gratuity had been paid to former Lokayukts and up-lokayukts in the case of Justice Dayal, Justice Naolekar and Justice Chandresh Bhushan but the payment of same was being erroneously denied to the petitioners, which is in contravention to the fundamental rights of the equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. In reply, PAG contends that even after receipt of the payment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sanjeev Sachdeva, C.J., Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.
Justice Naresh Kumar Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 18260 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 38596 of 2024
Decided On : 29-05-2026

When a state statute links service conditions to a Central Act, the benefits provided by that Central Act prevail regardless of omissions in state-specific rules or prior gratuity received in a different judicial capacity.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether gratuity is payable to Lokayukt or Up-lokayukt in absence of specific provision in the Adhiniyam or Rules?

5. Whether prior receipt of gratuity as a High Court judge bars separate gratuity for service as Lokayukt or Up-lokayukt?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 450

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURSanjeev Sachdeva, C.J., Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.Justice Naresh Kumar Gupta – Petitioner VersusThe State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents Writ Petition No. 18260 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 38596 of 2024Decided On : 29-05-2026

When a state statute links service conditions to a Central Act, the benefits provided by that Central Act prevail regardless of omissions in state-specific rules or prior gratuity received in a different judicial capacity.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether gratuity is payable to Lokayukt or Up-lokayukt in absence of specific provision in the Adhiniyam or Rules?

5. Whether prior receipt of gratuity as a High Court judge bars separate gratuity for service as Lokayukt or Up-lokayukt?

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sanjeev Sachdeva, C.J., Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.
Justice Naresh Kumar Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 18260 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 38596 of 2024
Decided On : 29-05-2026