Allahabad High Court
Jagmohan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 7 November, 2019
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16503 of 2019 Petitioner :- Jagmohan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Singh Parihar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Following orders were passed in the matter on 21.10.2019:-
"Petitioner is permitted to implead S.S.P., Hamirpur and S.P., Mahoba as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the said writ petition.
Notice on behalf of the newly impleaded respondents is accepted by learned Standing Counsel.
Petitioner has retired from the post of Sub-Inspector (Special Category) on 30.09.2018. He has approached this Court with the grievance that none of his retrial benefits have not been sanctioned to him. He further submits that despite expiry of sufficient time pension has not been released to petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel points out that a criminal case being Case Crime No. 91 of 1985, under Sections 363, 354, 511 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt. Mahoba, District Hamirpur was pending against him on account of which it appears that pension has not been sanctions to petitioner so far.
In the event aforesaid criminal case is pending yet the authorities can not deny payment of provisional pension to petitioner. Even otherwise materials have been placed before the Court as per which none of the records of the said case are available. A Full Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.40 of 2017 (Shivagopal Vs. State of U.P. and others), has been pleased to hold as under:
"78. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at the following conclusions:
(i) Future good conduct is implied condition of ever grant of pension. Full pension is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been thoroughly satisfactory. (Article 351/351-A)
(ii) Article 351 and/or 351-A can be invoked by the State Government or the Governor, as the case may be, if the pensioner (a) be convicted of serious crime; (b) be guilty of grave misconduct (c) caused pecuniary loss to the government in service. The power can be exercised in either of the eventualities. The action thereunder is punitive.
(iii) Pendency of disciplinary/judicial proceedings on the date of retirement, or instituted after retirement, provisional pension equal to maximum pension as mandated under Article 919-A may be sanctioned to the government servant for the period upto conclusion of the proceedings. (Article 351-AA/Article 919-A(1)/(2))
(iv) No gratuity is payable to the government servant during pendency of disciplinary/judicial proceedings/enquiry by Administrative Tribunal, until conclusion of the proceedings/enquiry and orders being passed thereon by the competent authority. [Article 919 A(3)]
(v) The Regulations mandates that government servant is entitled to provisional pension equal to maximum pension during pendency of the proceedings until conclusion. The Regulations does not mandate the entitlement of full pension/gratuity on the ground of 'hardship' being faced by the pensioner pending proceedings.
(vi) The nature of the charge/allegations against the government servant cannot be gone into during pendency of the proceedings. The government servant whether guilty of 'serious crime' and/or 'grave misconduct' in the opinion of the competent authority can be assessed/considered while passing final orders upon conclusion of the disciplinary/judicial proceedings.
(vii) On combined reading of Article 351, 351-A, 351-AA and 919-A, the impact on pension/gratuity would arise after the competent authority has had the occasion to consider and issue final orders upon conclusion of the proceedings. The cause to the government servant arises thereafter and not at the stage pending proceedings/enquiry."
In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to permit learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions from respondents as to why even provisional pension has not been sanctioned to the petitioner so far.
The current status of the criminal case would also be obtained from the Office concerned.
Post as fresh on 07.11.2019."
Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which, petitioner's claim for release of regular pension and other benefits has already been forwarded to the Finance Controller. It is also stated that petitioner is otherwise being paid provisional pension. The instructions further recites that an appropriate decision would be taken by the competent authority.
Records reveal that criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in 1985. The petitioner in paragraph 6 of the writ petition has specifically averred that an order of acquittal was passed by the competent court on 25.6.1985, whereafter he was promoted and all other service benefits were granted to him.
According to respondents, the relevant records relating to Case Crime No. 127 of 1985 are not traceable any further.
If that be so, the authorities would not be justified in withholding petitioner's retiral benefits indefinitely only because about 34 years back a First Information Report was lodged against him. Petitioner has already retired and there is neither any order of conviction passed against him, nor it is shown that any criminal trial is pending.
In that view of the matter, withholding of petitioner's retiral benefits would be wholly unjustified. This writ petition, therefore, stands allowed. A direction is issued to the concerned Finance Controller of the U.P. Police Headquarter to forthwith process petitioner's claim and to release all regular retiral benefits to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, failing which petitioner shall also be entitled to the interest @ 8% on the withheld amount.
Order Date :- 7.11.2019 Ranjeet Sahu