Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ appeal filed by a former revenue inspector against the dismissal of his writ petition wherein he had sought payment of his retiral dues, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva*, Acting CJ. and Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J., rejected the appeal, holding that the Furlough Scheme clearly stipulated that the period spent on furlough shall not be counted towards eligible service for computation of pension.
Background
In 1990, the appellant was appointed as a revenue inspector. The State Government introduced a Furlough Scheme for State Government employees, under which Government employees could go on leave for a maximum period of 5 years. During this period, they were entitled to take up their own business or service elsewhere and were entitled to 50 per cent of their salary.
The appellant applied under the said scheme and proceeded on furlough leave from 2006 to 2011. In 2011, the appellant informed the authorities that he was not interested in continuing in the department and desired to take voluntary retirement. However, he claimed the retiral dues based on the continuous length of service, including nearly 5 years spent on furlough.
Upon being denied the retiral dues, including pension, gratuity, and leave encashment with interest, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Single Judge, but it was dismissed.
Aggrieved, he filed the present appeal.
Analysis
The Court noted that the Furlough Scheme stipulated that the period spent on furlough shall not be counted towards eligible service for computation of pension, and consequently, the Single Judge held that in terms of the Furlough Scheme, the period spent by the appellant on furlough shall not be considered for computing his retiral dues.
Thus, the Court held that there was no infirmity in the view taken by the Single Judge, particularly in view of the explicit clause of furlough.
The Court further stated that the appellant’s contention that the Furlough Scheme was contrary to the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 and the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, did not have any merit because the aforesaid Rules did not provide for a similar Furlough Scheme.
The Court observed that,
“The Furlough Scheme has to be read as a whole, and an employee cannot contend that the beneficial part of the scheme is admissible and the part which provides for furlough period not being counted towards retiral dues separately is not sustainable, for being contrary to Rules.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
[Dhawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Appeal No. 1272 of 2025, decided on 14-07-2025]
*Order authored by: Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Archana Kher
For the respondent: Additional Advocate General Anand Soni
