1. Petitioner seeks settlement of retiral dues upon superannuation while respondents withhold payments citing pending criminal proceedings involving allegations of corruption registered against the petitioner. (Para 02 , 03 , 05 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 123285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J
Praveena Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 43547 of 2026
Important Points
Retiral benefits cannot be withheld solely based on the registration of an FIR; any such withholding must be strictly in accordance with the limited authority provided under the applicable Pension Rules.
Subject
Service Law - Pension and Retiral Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Retiral Benefits - Withholding of Dues - Mere registration of an FIR does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon authorities to withhold pensionary benefits; such action must be strictly in accordance with the limited authority provided under the applicable Pension Rules. (Para 3)
Issues: Whether the retiral dues of the petitioner can be withheld solely on the basis of a registered FIR.
Issues: Whether the retiral dues of the petitioner can be withheld solely on the basis of a registered FIR.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Naresh Piplodiya
For the Respondents: Rajvardhan Gawde
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Naresh Piplodiya
For the Respondents: Rajvardhan Gawde
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends bare registration of FIR without initiation of departmental proceedings does not justify withholding retiral benefits; respondents argue dues must remain withheld pending conclusion of criminal proceedings. (Para 03 , 04 , 05 )
3. The court noted the absence of information regarding the criminal proceedings stage and emphasized that statutory authority governs the withholding of retiral benefits after superannuation. (Para 06 , 07 )
4. Authorities must adhere strictly to limited statutory powers under Pension Rules when considering withholding or releasing retiral benefits of a retired employee, regardless of pending criminal FIRs. (Para 07 )
5. Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation and ordered respondents to decide on the settlement of retiral dues within three months in accordance with Pension Rules. (Para 07 )
6. Can retiral benefits be withheld merely due to the pendency of a criminal FIR?
The court held that withholding retiral benefits must be grounded in specific statutory authority provided under the applicable Pension Rules, rather than solely on the existence of a registered criminal FIR. (Para 03 , 07 )
7. What is the procedure to be followed when an employee's retiral dues remain unsettled after retirement?
The employee is required to submit a formal representation to the competent authorities, who are then obligated to consider the request and pass a reasoned order either settling the dues or justifying the withholding according to law. (Para 02 , 07 )
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition, being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, inasmuch as, despite having retired from service on 31.07.2025 from the post of Superintendent, his retiral dues have not been settled till date.
02. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving on the post of Superintendent in the respondent-Department. He retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.07.2025. However, even after his retirement, his retiral dues have not been settled. The petitioner may submit a fresh representation requesting the respondents to release and settle his retiral dues.
03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as appears from certain newspaper reports, an FIR was registered against approximately 51 persons, including the petitioner. However, there is no further information on record regarding the proceedings or steps taken pursuant thereto. He submits that, despite registration of the FIR in the year 2024, the petitioner was permitted to continue discharging his duties and ultimately retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation, without any departmental proceedings having been initiated against him. He thus submits that the mere registration of an FIR does not confer jurisdiction upon the authorities to withhold the petitioner's retiral benefits, including pension, as the limited jurisdiction is available as per Rule 64 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
04. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been suffering for want of payment of his retiral dues for more than one year. His employment was his sole source of livelihood, and, upon retirement, he was dependent upon the pension and other retiral benefits to which he is entitled. Thus, an appropriate direction deserves to be issued to the respondents to settle and release the retiral dues of the petitioner forthwith, in accordance with law.
05. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that, as is evident from the pleadings in the petition, an FIR has been registered against the petitioner with the Lokayukta in connection with allegations of corruption. He, therefore, submits that, till the conclusion of the said proceedings, the retiral dues of the petitioner cannot be settled.
06. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
07. Considering that no information is available on record regarding the present stage of the criminal case and having regard to the fact that the petitioner retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation and not in any other manner, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions:—
(a) The petitioner may resubmit the representation or may file a fresh representation along with a copy of this order to the respondents No. 2 & 3 within a period of three weeks from today.
(b) The said respondents shall, in turn, consider the petitioner's representation and pass an appropriate order, either settling his retiral dues or assigning cogent reasons, in accordance with law, for withholding or not settling the same. It is made clear that, since the petitioner has retired from service, the limited authority available to the respondents under the Pension Rules shall be duly adhered to while considering and deciding the petitioner's representation.
(c) The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
