Post-2004 Amendment to MP Lokayukt Act, Family Pension Governed by Judges' Service Acts, Not State Rules: Madhya Pradesh High Court - 2025-05-12

MP High Court Clarifies Pension and Leave Rules for Lokayukt, Up-Lokayukt

Jabalpur , MP – May 6, 2025 – The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment, has ruled that family pension for Lokayukts and Up-Lokayukts appointed after the 2004 amendment to the M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981, is payable from the date of their demise. This entitlement is governed directly by the service conditions applicable to Supreme Court or High Court judges, irrespective of specific provisions in state-level rules. However, the Court also capped the cash equivalent for unutilized leave at a cumulative maximum of 300 days over their entire service, including any period served as judges.

The division bench, comprising Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Hon'ble Shri Justice Vinay Saraf , delivered the verdict while deciding two writ petitions: W.P. No. 7248 of 2017, filed by former Supreme Court Judge and ex-Lokayukt Justice P.P. Naolekar , and W.P. No. 8399 of 2017, concerning the late Justice ChandreshBhushan , a former High Court Judge and Up-Lokayukt.

Case Background and Core Issues

The petitioners sought directions for the fixation of family pension for their spouses and payment for unutilized leave accumulated during their tenures as Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt, respectively. - Justice P.P. Naolekar served as Lokayukt from June 29, 2009, to June 28, 2016. - Justice ChandreshBhushan (deceased August 22, 2018) served as Up-Lokayukt from February 1, 2008, to January 1, 2014.

The central legal questions were: 1. From what date is family pension payable to the dependents of Lokayukts/Up-Lokayukts – the date of death or the date a specific provision was made in the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982? 2. Are Lokayukts/Up-Lokayukts entitled to cash for unutilized leave if they have already availed 300 days' leave encashment as Judges?

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Stance: The petitioners argued that the 2004 amendment to Section 5 of the M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (the Act), aligned their service conditions, including pension, directly with those of Supreme Court and High Court Judges. They contended that family pension should be payable from the date of death and also claimed entitlement to leave encashment for their service in these posts. Reliance was placed on the precedent in Shyamsunder Chawla versus State of Madhya Pradesh , where family pension was granted despite silent rules.

State's Counter-Arguments: The State of Madhya Pradesh contended that: - Family Pension: The 1982 Rules initially lacked a provision for family pension for Lokayukts/Up-Lokayukts. Such a provision was only inserted via an amendment effective January 25, 2022. Consequently, family pension for Justice Bhushan 's widow was initiated from this later date. - Leave Encashment: The petitioners had already received 300 days' leave encashment as judges. The State argued that Rule 6 of the 1982 Rules (as they interpreted it) and the Supreme Court's decision in V.S. Mallimath (2001) barred further encashment.

Court's Analysis and Legislative Interpretation

The High Court meticulously examined the legislative history of Section 5 of the Act, particularly the transformative 2004 amendment.

The Pivotal 2004 Amendment: The Court highlighted a "clear legislative shift in 2004." Prior to this, Section 5(5) of the Act stated that allowances and pension "shall be such as may be prescribed," with a proviso to have "regard" to the conditions of service of Supreme Court/High Court judges. The 2004 amendment substituted this, mandating that the salary, allowances, pension, and other service conditions for the Lokayukt "shall be same as are admissible to him before his appointment as contained in the Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1958... or the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954," and similarly for the Up-Lokayukt, aligning them with a sitting High Court Judge.

The Court noted: > "There is no merit in the contention on behalf of the State. There is a clear legislative shift in 2004; from the power of the Governor to prescribe the allowances and pension payable to, and other conditions of service,; to being regulated entirely by the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, or the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the rules made under the aforesaid Acts." (Para 33)

On Family Pension: Based on the 2004 amendment, the Court concluded that the State could not rely on the absence or subsequent amendment of its 1982 Rules to determine family pension entitlement. The entitlement flows directly from the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 (Section 16A) and the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (Section 17A), which provide for family pension.

> "Thus the State cannot now rely upon the Rules to regulate the allowances and pension payable to, and other conditions of Service of the Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt." (Para 37)

The Court held that family pension is payable from the date of death of the Lokayukt/Up-Lokayukt appointed post-2004 amendment, not from the date the State amended its rules. The question of entitlement prior to the 2004 amendment was left open.

On Leave Encashment: The Court rejected the State's reliance on V.S. Mallimath , finding it inapplicable due to differing statutory provisions. While noting the State's initial misstatement regarding Rule 6 of the 1982 Rules (which had been amended to 240 days, not 300), the Court ultimately agreed with a 300-day cap based on the Judges' Service Acts.

Rule 4A of both the Supreme Court and High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Acts entitles a judge to leave encashment "in his entire service... to the extent of the maximum period prescribed... under the All India Service (Leave) Rules, 1955." Rule 20A of the All India Service (Leave) Rules, 1955, specifies a maximum of 300 days.

The Court stated: > "The legislative intent is apparent. The intention of the legislature is that in the entire service of any nature to which the All India Service (Leave) Rules, 1955 apply, the maximum period prescribed in the said rules would apply. The rules restrict the period for which cash equivalent of leave salary can be claimed on retirement to 300 days." (Para 53)

Thus, the total leave encashment throughout one's service, including as a judge and subsequently as Lokayukt/Up-Lokayukt, is capped at 300 days.

Final Decision and Directives

The High Court disposed of the petitions with the following key directions:

Family Pension: It is payable to the dependent family member of a Lokayukt/Up-Lokayukt (appointed after the 2004 Act amendment) from the date of death, not from the date of any subsequent state rule amendment.

Payment to Smt. Madhu Bhushan (W.P. No. 8399/2017): Arrears of family pension for the late Justice ChandreshBhushan to be paid from August 22, 2018, within 90 days, with 7% per annum interest.

Revised PPO (W.P. No. 7248/2017): Respondents to issue a revised Pension Payment Order for Justice P.P. Naolekar , incorporating his wife's entitlement to family pension (as and when the cause arises), within one month, if not already done, pursuant to the State's undertaking on February 5, 2025.

Leave Encashment: Lokayukts/Up-Lokayukts are entitled to cash equivalent of unutilized leave subject to a maximum of 300 days, inclusive of any leave encashment already availed as Judges. Since both petitioners had already received 300 days' encashment, no further amount was due on this account.

This judgment clarifies crucial aspects of service conditions for these important anti-corruption ombudsman posts, emphasizing the supremacy of the parent Act's provisions, particularly after specific legislative amendments aimed at aligning their benefits with those of higher judiciary judges.