Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Subhash Pachpor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 17789 of 2020
(DR. SUBHASH PACHPOR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 10-01-2023
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate with Shri Shivam Mishra-
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.D. Singh - Government Advocate for respondents.
Heard learned counsels on I.A. No. 13132 of 2022 for interim direction. This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to release the gratuity and leave encashment amount to the petitioner. The main prayer in the writ petition is similar to this one.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner even though has been granted 90% of the pension, the respondents have withheld the gratuity and leave encashment, family benefit funds etc. in view of the pendency of the criminal case lodged against him. Hence, he pleads that in terms of Rule 64 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 ( for short " the 1976 Rules"), he will be entitled for at least 50% of the gratuity etc. The same is opposed to by the State on the ground that admittedly a criminal case is pending, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested under Rule 64 of the 1976 Rules, they have withheld the pension.
Having heard the learned counsels, we do not find it appropriate to grant the interim relief as sought for by the petitioner. Rule 64 of the 1976 Rules postulates that keeping in mind the gravity of the charges involved, the Department is entitled to release upto a maximum of 50% of the gratuity. The Signature Not Verified SAN same would imply that under no circumstances, gratuity beyond 50% can be Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2023.01.12 17:28:16 IST granted. Therefore, what could be granted is 50% or less depending on the 2 gravity of the charges.
Admittedly, in the instant case, the criminal case is pending against him. Therefore, the State have exercised their powers under Rule 64 of the 1976 Rules and withheld the gratuity. Whether the withholding of the gratuity is just or appropriate requires to be considered at the stage of final hearing. We do not find it appropriate to record any finding with regard to the applicability of Rule 64 of the 1976 Rules or discretion exercised by the respondents in withholding the gratuity or pension at this stage. The same requires to be considered at the stage of final hearing. Hence, for all these reasons, I.A. No. 13132 of 2022 for interim direction is accordingly rejected.
Post for hearing in the usual course.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
MSP
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH
PARIHAR
Date: 2023.01.12 17:28:16 IST