Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pramod Kumar Jain Through Lrs Smt Mohini ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2490
1 WA-936-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 936 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN THROUGH LRS SMT MOHINI JAIN
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Khedkar - Senior Advocate/Additional Advocate General with Shri
S.S.Kushwah - Govt. Advocate and Shri Kartik Karara - Panel Lawyer for the
appellants/State.
Shri R.B.S.Tomar - Advoate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak With the consent heard finally.
2 . The present Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) of The Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellants/State being aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P.No.25685/2018, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner (respondent herein) has been allowed.
3. Prime questions involved in the present case are that -
(i) Before withholding of entire pension whether the State Public Service Commission is required to be consulted as per Rule 9 of The Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 1/22/2026 12:58:14 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2490 2 WA-936-2024 Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter shall be referred as to 'the Rules of 1976') or not ? ; and
(ii) Whether entire pension can be permanently withheld or not ?
4. At the out set, learned counsel for the appellants/State submits that consultation with the State Public Service Commission in the matter of pension is not compulsory as mandated by the Apex Court in the case of Major U.R.Bhatt Vs. Union of India - AIR 1962 SC 1344.
5. It is further submitted that entire pension can be withheld permanently in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others - (1993) 1 SCC 47.
6. Counsel for the appellants referred the order passed by the Division Bench in the case of Radha Krishna Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others -
(2021) 4 MPLJ 367 as well as order dt.13th September 2023 passed in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Dhirendra Kumar Dubey (W.A.No.1293/2021) to fairly submit that these two orders discuss the question that consultation with the State Public Service Commission is mandatory before proceeding for withholding of pension. It also governs the point that opportunity of hearing is required to be given.
7 . Counsel for the respondent opposed the contentions of the appellants/State to the extent that there is distinction under Rule 15 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the Rules of 1966') and Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976. During enquiry when the employee is in service, it is discretion of the authority to consult State Public Service Commission but Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 1/22/2026 12:58:14 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2490 3 WA-936-2024 once the matter pertains to pension under Rules of 1976, then the consultation with State Public Service Commission is mandatory. Both the Division Bench judgments deal in this regard categorically.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent although tried to justify that although pension can not be withheld, however, could not distinguish the mandate of Rule 9 of Rules of 1976 by which entire pension can be withheld permanently.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Considering the rival submissions and going through the language of Rule 15 (3) of the Rules of 1966 and Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 as well as judgments of the Division Bench in the case of Radha Krishna Sharma (supra) and Dhirendra Kumar Dubey (supra), it appears that consultation with the State Public Service Commission (PSC) is mandatory and therefore, if the consultation with PSC is not carried out, then it vitiates the proceeding.
11. So far as withholding of entire pension permanently is concerned, Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) has given the guidelines in following manner :-
5. Rule 3 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 contains the definitions. Clause (o ) in sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 is as under:-
"Pension" includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity. From this definition of the word 'pension', it is clear that ordinarily the word 'pension' wherever used in these Rules includes gratuity except when the term 'pension' is used in contradistinction to gratuity.
6. Rule 9, to the extent it is relevant for our purpose, is an under:-Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 1/22/2026 12:58:14 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2490 4 WA-936-2024
9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension. - (1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:
Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed :
Bearing in mind the definition of the term 'pension' in Rule 3(1) (o ), the term 'pension' used in Rule 9(1) must be construed to include gratuity since the term 'pension', in the context, is not used in contradistinction to gratuity. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, referred to the amendment made in Rule 9(1) by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Third Amendment Rules, 1991, whereby the term 'pension' has been substituted by the expression 'pension or gratuity, or both' and consequential amendments made in that sub-rule. The question is : Whether this amendment made in 1991 indicates, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, that 'pension' alone could be withheld under Rule 9(1) and not also the gratuity prior to the amendment of Rule 9(1) in 1991? In our opinion, the definition of 'pension' in Rule 3(1)(o ) quoted above negatives the appellant's contention and clearly indicates that the 1991 Amendment is merely clarificatory and makes explicit that which was clearly implicit prior to that amendment by virtue of the definition of term 'pension' in Rule 3(1)(o ). This clarification appears to have been made only to remove the doubt created by the decisions relied on by counsel for the appellant which are considered hereafter.
9. Reference to some other provisions in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 supports the view we have taken.
Rule 69(1)(c) provides that no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. This provision is indicative of the power to withhold payment of gratuity and its payment being subject to the final outcome of any pending departmental or judicial proceeding against the Government servant. Rules 71 and 73 relating to recovery and adjustment of Government dues and the express provision in Rule 73(3) for adjustment of dues against the amount of death-cum- retirement gratuity payable to the Government servant also reinforce this conclusion. Article 366 of the Constitution of India contains the definitions for the purpose of the Constitution and there in Clause (17) is defined 'pension' to include gratuity as well. This definition of 'pension' in the Constitution also indicates that Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV KUMAR PHANSE Signing time: 1/22/2026 12:58:14 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2490 5 WA-936-2024 conceptually the term 'pension' includes gratuity. In Rule 3(1)( o ) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the term 'pension' is defined to include gratuity except when the term 'pension' is used in contradistinction to gratuity, in consonance with the basic concept. The contention of the appellant was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Tribunal.
Thus,from above guidance and from the very perusal of Rule 9, it can be safely inferred that full pension can be withheld permanently.
12. However, in view of the above discussion when consultation with State PSC was not carried out in the instant case and same was required to be done, thus, proceeding got vitiated. It appears that learned Writ Court did not err in passing the impugned order. Therefore, impugned order stands affirmed on this ground. Since liberty is granted to the appellants for seeking concurrence from the State Public Service Commission and thereafter ensure appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law, therefore, no further direction is required to be passed. Appellants to comply accordingly.
13. Appeal stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJEEV
KUMAR PHANSE
Signing time: 1/22/2026
12:58:14 PM