IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA rd ON THE 3 OF JULY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 23535 of 2023 (SURESH CHAND AGRAWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Appearance:

(SHRI DINESH KUMAR UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)

(BY SHRI JUBIN PRASAD - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTS/STATE)

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to make the payment of interest of full pension gratuity and other retiral claim of the petitioner along with the interest of 12% per annum from the date of entitlement i.e. 31.03.2003, to payment May, 2023.

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the litigation."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was an employee of the respondent/department and on attaining the age of superannuation stood retired on 31.03.2003. Prior to retirement, he was roped up in a criminal case for the offences under Section 13(1) E & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was suspended and after attaining the age of superannuation, the suspension of the petitioner was automatically revoked. After retirement, he filed an application seeking retiral claim and prayed for disbursement of his gratuity amount, but the same was put to hold by the respondent/department on account of the pendency of the criminal case. The petitioner got acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment of acquittal dated 09.11.2010 by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Jabalpur in Special Case No.10 of 2002. He Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL again made a prayer for payment of his retiral dues by way of a representation dated 08.05.2012. The aforesaid representation was considered by the authorities and they have passed an order dated 21.12.2012 to the effect that final claim will be settled after decision in M.Cr.C.No.2507 of 2011.

3. It is argued that factum of acquittal of the petitioner was in the knowledge of the authorities on 21.12.2012, therefore, they were not having any authority to withhold the post retiral claims of the petitioner. Merely filing an application for leave to appeal cannot be a ground for withholding of the retiral claim of an employee. Placing reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gendan Singh Gaharwar vs. State of M.P. reported in 2020 (3) MPWN 67, he again preferred a representation to the authorities in the year 2022, but of no consequence. Therefore, a writ petition being W.P.No.9153 of 2022 was filed. The same was disposed off by this court with an observation to decide the claim of the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed in the case of Gendan Singh Gaharwar (supra).

4. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the directions given by this court in W.P.No.9153 of 2022, all the retiral claims including pension and gratuity have been paid to the petitioner, but interest towards the delayed payment has not been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, he again preferred a representation to the authorities claiming interest on the gratuity and other retiral dues, but the same has been rejected by the authorities on the ground that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner has made a prayer for disbursement of his retiral claim and claimed interest w.e.f. 31.08.2016. Now, by filing the present petition, the petitioner is claiming payment of interest with effect from

31.03.2003 till May, 2023.

5. The respondents have filed their return denying the aforesaid and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL supported the impugned order based upon the averment made by the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.9153 of 2022. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner after his acquittal was rejected by the authorities way back in the year