PYARE LAL RAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging order dtd. 11/11/2021 contained in Annexure P-1. By said order prayer of petitioner for encashment of earned leave was rejected on ground that he was convicted under Ss. 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Prayer for encashment of earned leave was rejected in aid with Rule 64(1)(c) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 on grounds that payment is to be made on conclusion of proceedings. Final retiral benefits are to be paid after adjustment of provisional pension gratuity paid under Rule 64(1)(c) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 on conclusion of proceedings. Proceedings include departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings.

(2.) Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that respondents had committed an error in passing impugned order and same is not in consonance with law. There is no specific provision which aids withholding of leave encashment of petitioner. In Writ Appeal No.772/2019 (Sevaram Khandegar Vs. State of M.P. and Others) Division Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 04/02/2019 held that there is no provision, which disentitles petitioner during pendency of criminal case from encashing leave in his account. Writ Appeal filed was allowed and respondents were directed to release 50% of gratuity as directed by learned Single Judge as well as amount which is in account of petitioner under leave encashment head. In support of his contention counsel also placed reliance on orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.18341/2023 (Badelal Pathak Vs. State of M.P. and Others) decided on 05/09/2023 and also order dtd. 10/02/2023 passed in Writ Petition No.17844/2020 (Bhuvansingh Waskel Vs. State of M.P. and Others). In view of aforesaid, counsel for petitioner prays for quashing of impugned order and allowing Writ Petition.

(3.) Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that leave encashment was rejected placing reliance on Rule 64(1)(c) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which authorises withholding of pensionary benefit during pendency of judicial proceedings. There is no illegality in the order. If petitioner is finally acquitted, shall be adjusted against final retiral benefits. In view of same, Writ Petition be dismissed.