Retired employee convicted post-superannuation is entitled to provisional pension from retirement date until conviction date.

The petitioner was appointed as a Superintendent in 1964 and retired as a Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur on 31.01.1998.

Following his retirement, he was convicted on 30.05.2006 under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in Special Case No. 2/1998.

Consequently, the respondents issued an order on 31.03.2010 imposing a penalty of permanent withholding of pension.

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking pensionary benefits, arrears of salary for specific periods (1995–1998), pay fixation according to the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, and provisional pension from the date of retirement until the date of conviction.

1. Whether a retired employee is entitled to provisional pension for the period between the date of superannuation and the date of criminal conviction.

2. Whether the permanent withholding of pension under Rule 8 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 is valid upon conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Rule 8 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which mandates that pension is subject to the "future good conduct" of the retired employee and empowers the State to withhold or withdraw pension if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime.

Rule 64 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which governs the grant of provisional pension during the pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings.

The court noted that while the respondents were legally empowered under Rule 8 to withdraw the petitioner's pension following his conviction on 30.05.2006, the petitioner had already superannuated on 31.01.1998.

At the time of his retirement, there was no order of conviction against him.

Therefore, the court reasoned that the petitioner maintained the status of a retiree entitled to sustenance via provisional pension until the legal determination of his guilt.

Regarding other claims like pay commission arrears and unpaid salary, the court found they required administrative determination and directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation.

It held that the petitioner is entitled to provisional pension under Rule 64 from 01.02.1998 (post-retirement) until 30.05.2006 (date of conviction).

The respondents were directed to pay this amount with 6% interest per annum within three months, failing which the interest rate would increase to 12%.

Regarding other retiral dues and pay fixation, the court directed the competent authority to decide on the petitioner's representation within three months.