Does Receiving Gratuity as a High Court Judge Prevent a Separate Gratuity for Service as Lokayukta? Madhya Pradesh High Court Answers
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that Lokayukts and UpLokayukts are entitled to receive Gratuity for their services, which is independent from the benefits received from High Court Judgeship. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 218]The division bench of then Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed,"...petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Death-Cum-Retirement...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that Lokayukts and UpLokayukts are entitled to receive Gratuity for their services, which is independent from the benefits received from High Court Judgeship. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 218]
The division bench of then Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal observed,
"...petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity for the service rendered as Lokayukta and Up-lokayukta respectively, irrespective of the amount already received by them due to holding the office of judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh".
Two writ petitions were filed. First, by Justice Naresh Kumar Gupta, who retired from the High Court in 2017 and was subsequently appointed as Lokayukta. In 2024, he retired from this post also. The second petition was filed by Justice Umesh Chandra Maheshwari, who demitted the High Court in 2016 and was appointed as Up Lokayukt, ultimately retiring in 2022.
The petitioners, post-retirement, sent their pension cases to the Principal Secretary of the General Administrative Department for approval. After the Governor's approval, it was forwarded to the Principal Accountant General with directions to pay Pension and Gratuity.
The Principal Accountant General (PAG) declined the cases recording in his communication of June 13, 2026, that there was no provision for payment of Gratuity in Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981, or in Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982. He further recorded that the petitioners had received gratuity at the time of demitting Judge's office and that there was a ceiling of gratuity amount of ₹20 Lakhs.
The petitioners challenged this communication, claiming that their appointments as Lokayukt and Up Lokayukt cannot be treated as a continuation of their service as High Court Judges. The petitioners further argued that once the approval for pension cases was granted by the Governor with directions to pay Gratuity, the PAG could not have denied payment.
On the other hand, the PAG argued that the payment of Gratuity, despite directions from the Governor, was declined due to the absence of specific provisions in the relevant rules. It was argued that earlier, Rule 8(A) of the 1982 Rules allowed payment of Gratuity, but the provision was omitted through a gazette notification of March 4, 2005.
The PAG also submitted that there was a maximum ceiling of Gratuity benefit payable to a High Court Judge under the HC Judges Act, 1954, at ₹20 Lakh, which was already paid to the petitioners and therefore, no additional payment could be released. He also argued that the term "pension" in the 1954 Act also includes gratuity, and the provision applies to Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt.
During the proceedings, the petitioners were paid ₹5 lakh each, citing that the maximum ceiling on payment of Gratuity was increased to ₹25 lakhs.
The central issue for consideration- "Whether any Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity is payable to Lokayukt or Up-lokayukt of State of Madhya Pradesh in absence of any provision in the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-lokayukt (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1982?".
The court, after examining the legislative history of the 1982 Rules, observed a shift after an amendment in 2004. The court noted that prior to the 2004 amendment, the Governor was empowered to prescribe the allowances and pension payable to the entire process being regulated by the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, or the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and the rules made under the aforesaid Acts.
The bench clarified that prior to 2004, the payables were to be as may be prescribed. But after the 2004 amendment, the payables could be prescribed to what is stipulated in the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, and the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and the rules framed thereunder.
The bench held, "The allowances and pension payable to, and other conditions of Service of the Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt are the same as prescribed under the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, or the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, as the case may be".
Therefore, the bench held that the petitioners would be entitled to salary even in the absence of specific provisions or post omission of Rule 8A of 1982 Rules as stipulated under Section 17A(3) of the HC Judges Act, 1954.
The bench directed that the gratuity be paid to the petitioners within 8 weeks, along with 7% interest.
Case Title: Justice Naresh Kumar Gupta v State of Madhya Pradesh, Justice Umesh Chandra Maheshwari v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. Nos. 18260/2024 & 38596/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 218
For Petitioners: Advocates Satyam Agrawal, Aryan Shukla and Saket Agrawal
For State: Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh
For PAG: Advocate Sanjay Lal