Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 304 (MP)

GAYARAM SINGH RATHORE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2018-03-14

SUJOY PAUL

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. The petitioner who has attained the age of superannuation on 30th April, 2015, is claiming benefit of retiral dues. The benefits are not released on the singular ground that the petitioner was an accused in Special Criminal Case No.4/2013. Although by judgment dated 28th February, 2017 Annexure P/1, the petitioner was acquitted in the said case and a criminal appeal has been filed by the State Government which is still pending (para 4). 2. Shri Rajesh Mishra, learned Government Advocate pressed the aforesaid singular ground and contended that appeal is an extension of trial and; therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get the retiral dues. 3. Shri Paritosh Trivedi relied upon various judgments of the High Court in the cases of Balak Singh Thakur vs. State of M.P. [WP No.7592/2013(s)], R.C. Dubey vs. M.P. State Electricity Board [WP No.12152/2007(s)], S. Rajagopal vs. The Registrar (WP No.18949/2014) and Chula Ram Heerani vs. State of Rajasthan (Civil Writ Petition No.3509/2014). and contended that the respondents are not justified in retaining/withholding the retiral dues. 4. No other point is raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. The point involved in this case is no more res integra. In Balak Singh Thakur. 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 continuation of trial, will not amount to a pendency of judicial proceedings." 7. The same view was taken by other High Courts in the case of S. Rajagopal and Chula Ram Heerani. 8. Considering the aforesaid, the action of respondents in not releasing the retiral dues under the garb of pendency of criminal appeal is disapproved. The same view was taken by other High Courts in the case of S. Rajagopal and Chula Ram Heerani. 8. Considering the aforesaid, the action of respondents in not releasing the retiral dues under the garb of pendency of criminal appeal is disapproved. The respondents are directed to release and settled the retiral dues of the petitioner within 90 days from the date of production of copy of this order. 9. Petition is allowed.