STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BABAN YASHWANT GHUGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is with regard to the entitlement of a State Government employee to receive gratuity on the conclusion of judicial proceedings in view of Rule 130(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. In other words, whether gratuity is payable on the acquittal of an employee in judicial proceedings or whether payment of gratuity can be made only after the acquittal has attained finality?

(3.) The facts relevant for considering the aforesaid issue are that the respondent came to be appointed as Junior Engineer on 01/06/1978. On 21/11/1998, proceedings under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act of 1988) came to be filed against him and his family members. As a consequence of initiation of these proceedings, the respondent was placed under suspension. He was thereafter prosecuted in the said proceedings vide Special Case No.8 of 2002. The learned Special Judge at the conclusion of trial acquitted the respondent and other accused by the judgment dtd. 25/04/2008. The State Government being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.638 of 2009 in this Court which is pending. Since the appeal preferred by the State Government challenging the order of acquittal was pending, the pensionary benefits alongwith gratuity of the respondent were withheld. In this backdrop, the respondent approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) by filing Original Application No.843 of 2016. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 04 /07/2017 took the view that the respondent having been acquitted in the criminal trial, it could not be said that any judicial proceedings in the form of the criminal appeal were pending. It held that the expression "judicial proceedings" was restricted to the criminal trial and on acquittal, the said proceedings came to an end. On this premise, the Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to receive regular pension as well gratuity that was withheld. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the State of Maharashtra has preferred this writ petition.