JUDGMENT

Per Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva:

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