IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 29400 of 2023 ANIL GADHAVE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Sanjay Jamindar, counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Swati Ukhale, counsel for the respondents/State.

ORDER Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

This instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for non payment of retiral dues, pension and gratuity etc and the pay difference and non grant of benefit of Seventh Pay Commission.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-II on 31.10.1988 in the Cooperative Department and has superannuated on 31.03.2023 from the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative Society, Mandsaur (MP). It is contended that at the time of posting at Ujjain, a Lokayukt case was registered against the petitioner by the Lokayukt Ujjain under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the matter was tried before the Special Judge, PC Act, Ujjain and after conducting the trial, the petitioner was found guilty and he was awarded three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- by the Special Court, Lokayukt, Ujjain in Special Case No.SCLOK No.15/2017 vide judgment dated 07.03.2023.

3. It is further contended that against the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.10402 of 2023 which was admitted for final hearing and the sentence awarded by the Special Judge, PC Act, has been suspended vide order dated 03.10.2023. It is contended that the appeal is pending and the same is to be heard finally. It is also contended that the petitioner has successfully completed his service period on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2023 and therefore he is entitled for all the pensionary benefits, as the pension is the fundamental and valuable right of an employee/petitioner as enshrined under Article 300 of the Constitution of India, therefore the same cannot be denied without any due process of law.

4. Per contra, the respondents have filed the reply stating therein that the allegations levelled against the respondents are baseless and has thus denied in toto. The respondents have further contended that Under Secretary, Cooperative, State of Madhya Pradesh has passed the order under Rule 9 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, by which the whole pension has been withdrawn with the prior approval of Cabinet of Ministers. It has also been averred that to the best knowledge and information, this order was not challenged by the petitioner before any competent court, therefore the said order has attained finality and the petitioner is not entitled to grant any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The respondents have also iterated that the relief sought against them is not tenable and no intereference is called for by this Court and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed in limine.

5. Heard both parties at length and examined the entire record available.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that this Court takes note of the amendment to Rule 64 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, notified vide Gazette dated 19.05.2023, whereby Rule 64(c) has been substituted to read as under:-

“(c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon:”

7. In the considered view of this Court, the amended Rule 64(c) clearly bars payment of gratuity during pendency of judicial proceedings. The language employed is unambiguous and admits of no other interpretation. Since judicial proceedings are admittedly pending against the petitioner, denial