Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a batch of writ appeals filed in a government pension-related case, the Division Bench of Vivek Agarwal and Avanindra Kumar Singh, JJ., allowed adjournment, remarking that it appeared that the appellant’s counsel was unavailable due to being under shock after losing the High Court Bar Association elections.
Background
In the case of Asha Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, via order dated 3 January, 2024, the petitioner therein had challenged an order passed by the Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Water Resources Department, permanently withholding her pension as she was convicted under section 420 Penal Code, 1860, for three years. She contended that her pension had been permanently suspended despite her appeal against conviction being pending.
The Co-ordinate Bench held that Rule 9(1) M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, gives power to the Governor to withdraw or withhold the pension of a retired government servant either permanently or temporarily. Pension can be withheld partly or entirely. Governor is also vested with the power for recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the government. Only because a government servant has been given full opportunity of hearing in a criminal case will not rule out opportunity of hearing to a government servant on question of stoppage of pension.
The Bench further added that a criminal court does not have any opportunity to consider the question of stoppage of pension, which is the right of a government servant, and the same was not an issue before the criminal court. Therefore, it could not be said that a government servant, who is convicted in a criminal trial, cannot be given a second opportunity of hearing of stoppage of pension when he has been convicted after affording full opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned government order was quashed.
Similarly, in Dinesh Chandra Soni v. State of M.P.,2 vide order dated 21 November, 2023, the Co-ordinate Bench allowed a writ petition against a government order whereby the petitioner’s pension had been withheld permanently. The Bench held that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to be heard despite her having superannuated and receiving full pension before conviction.
Several similarly situated people filed the present batch of appeals, including the appellant herein. The appellant contended that the appellant had retired much before the conviction was awarded to him.
Previously, on 5 August 2026, the counsel for the appellant sought a listing after 17 August since he was contesting the High Court Bar Association elections.
Analysis
Noting that the appellant prayed for an adjournment, the Court remarked,
“It appears that, under shock due to loss in election to the High Court Bar Association, arguing counsel is not available today.”
Accordingly, the matter was listed for 20 August 2026.
[Dashrath Kumar v. Principal Secretary to Governor of Madhya Pradesh, WA No. 961 of 2023, decided on 19-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Om Shanker Pandey, Rajni Mishra
For the respondents: Govt. Advocate Manas Mani Verma
1. Writ Petition No.4279/2023
2. Writ Petition No.3936/2023
