Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gayaram Singh Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-12953-2017
(GAYARAM SINGH RATHORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 14-03-2018
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the State.
With the consent finally heard.
The petitioner who has attained the age of superannuation on
sh
30th April, 2015, is claiming benefit of retiral dues. The benefits are
not released on the singular ground that the petitioner was an accused
e
ad
in Special Criminal Case No.4/2013. Although by judgment dated
28th Feburary, 2017 Annexure P/1, the petitioner was acquitted in the
Pr
said case and a criminal appeal has been filed by the State
a
Government which is still pending (para 4).
hy
Shri Rajesh Mishra, learned Government Advocate pressed the
ad
aforesaid singular ground and contended that appeal is an extension of
trial and; therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get the retiral dues.
M
Shri Paritosh Trivedi relied upon various judgments of the High
of
Court in the cases of Balak Singh Thakur vs. State of MP [WP
No.7592/2013(s)], R.C. Dubey vs. M.P. State Electricity Board [WP
rt
No.12152/2007(s)], S.Rajagopal vs. The Registrar (WP
ou
No.18949/2014) and Chula Ram Heerani vs. State of Rajasthan
C
(Civil Writ Petition No.3509/2014). and contended that the
respondents are not justified in retaining/withholding the retiral dues.
h ig No other point is raised by the learned counsel for the parties. H I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
The point involved in this case is no more res integra. In Balak Singh Thakur(supra). This court has opined as under:
"The preferment of a criminal revision or an appeal against an acquittal cannot be regarded as a continuance of the trial and cannot be treated to be pendency of judicial proceeding as the initial presumption of innocence gets re-enforced by the orders of acquittal. The contention, therefore, putforth by the respondents that the filing of revision against the judgment dated 12.12.2000 would tantamount to the pendency of judicial proceeding does not reason with the provisions as they stand under law. In the considered opinion of this court, after acquittal, which lead to an affirmation of the innocence of the accused, an appeal or revision, as the case may be, being not a sh continuation of trial, will not amount to a e pendency of judicial proceedings."
ad Pr The same view was taken by other High Courts in the case of a hy S.Rajagopal and Chula Ram Heerani(supra).
Considering the aforesaid, the action of respondents in not ad releasing the retiral dues under the garb of pendency of criminal M appeal is disapproved. The respondents are directed to release and settled the retiral dues of the petitioner within 90 days from the date of of production of copy of this order.
rt Petition is allowed. ou (SUJOY PAUL) C JUDGE h ig H YS Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2018.03.14 17:09:55 +05'30'