Introduction:

In a crucial ruling on the interpretation of Madhya Pradesh’s Furlough Scheme, 2006, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, through a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, dismissed the appeal filed by a former revenue inspector who sought retirement benefits including the period of furlough in his service computation. The case titled Dhawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WA-1272-2025), arose after a single judge earlier rejected the inspector’s plea for inclusion of nearly five years of furlough leave under the Furlough Scheme as part of his qualifying service for pension and retiral dues. The appellant had served as a Revenue Inspector from 1990 and availed the Furlough Scheme in 2006, which permitted him to take leave for up to five years with 50% salary and engage in alternate employment. He went on furlough from October 1, 2006, and chose to retire voluntarily before the five-year period ended, with effect from July 1, 2011. He then claimed retirement benefits on the ground that including the furlough period, his total government service exceeded 20 years, thereby qualifying for pensionary benefits.

Arguments:

Represented by Advocate Archana Kher, the appellant argued that the Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, and Civil Services Leave Rules, 1977, did not expressly prohibit the inclusion of furlough as qualifying service. She cited Rule 21 of the Pension Rules and the corresponding leave provisions to claim that the leave period did not interrupt continuity of service. It was contended that since the furlough duration was less than the five-year maximum and allowed under existing service regulations, it ought to be counted as part of continuous service.

The respondent State, represented by Additional Advocate General Anand Soni, refuted this claim by asserting that the Furlough Scheme was a standalone, independent policy that could not be read in conjunction with the Pension or Leave Rules. He pointed to Clause 2.13 of the Furlough Scheme, which explicitly states that the furlough period shall not be counted towards eligible service for computation of pension. He emphasized that government servants opting for furlough had to accept both benefits and limitations attached to the scheme.

Judgement:

The division bench concurred with the State’s view, affirming the reasoning of the single judge. The Court held that the Furlough Scheme is to be interpreted in its entirety, and the appellant could not selectively invoke the beneficial aspects while rejecting the limitations. The Court observed that the scheme clearly provided for 50% pay and right to alternate employment during the furlough period, but simultaneously mandated that the furlough would not count towards pension eligibility. The bench also noted that the Pension Rules and Leave Rules did not include any provisions for furlough and therefore the scheme operated as a distinct policy framework. Dismissing the argument that the leave was akin to sanctioned leave under existing rules, the bench emphasized that this reasoning ignored the comprehensive nature of the Furlough Scheme. The Court stated, “Furlough has to be considered as a whole,” and held that the appellant, having availed its benefits, could not now argue against its express exclusions. In light of these observations, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the single judge’s ruling, thereby reinforcing the principle that schemes granting special privileges to government employees must be adhered to in full and not interpreted in parts to favor convenience.