Allahabad High Court
Devendra Singh Chauhan, Retired ... vs The State Of Up And 6 Others on 7 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:177554
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 12197 of 2025
Devendra Singh Chauhan, Retired Constable
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of Up And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ambuj Maurya, Atipriya Gautam, Jay Vishwanath Pandey, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Affidavit filed on behalf of S.P. Firozabad dated 06.10.2025 is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner happens to be a Constable in U.P. Police Department who was compulsorily retired from his services on 30.11.2017. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner is not being paid the Commutation of Pension, Gratuity Amount, Pension along with arrears and interest with effect from 01.12.2017.
4. This Court entertained the present writ petition on 23.08.2025 while passing following orders.-
"Petitioner is aggrieved for non disbursal of post retirement dues even though no disciplinary proceedings pending against to punishes him for payment of post retirement dues.
Learned Standing Counsel is to obtain instructions in the matter.
Put up on 15.09.2025."
5. Thereafter, on 15.09.2025, the following orders were passed.-
"Let Superintendent of Police, Firozabad file his affidavit in the matter regarding status of investigation in connection in Case Crime No. 1589 of 1992 under Sections279, 323, 504 IPC Police Station Thana Dakshin District Firozabad on the next date failing which, he shall be appearing in person before the Court.
List on 07.10.2025.
Shri V.K.Mishra, learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the officer concerned within three days."
6. Today, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad in which in paragraph No. 3 & 4, the following has been averred.-
"3. That, in compliance of order dated 15.09.2025 the present affidavit is being filed by the answering deponent with the submission that by letter dated 08.09.2025 of incharge inspector Police Station South, District Firozabad, Chief DADV Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad was requested to provide ad current status of the prosecution of Case Crime No. 1589 of 1992 under Sections 279, 323, 504 IPC Police Station Thana Dakshin District Firozabad upon which by office endorsement dated 11.09.2025 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, the following remark has been entered:-
"??????? ????? ????-1992 ?? ?? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???? 1992 ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???, ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ???"
Copy of endorsement dated 11.09.2025 is being filed herewith is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit.
4. That, after endorsement report dated 11.09.2025 from the office of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad incharge Inspector South Police Station Dakshin District Firozabad by his report dated 11.09.2025 alongwith recommendation dated 13.09.2025 and Circle Officer, City, District Firozabad was forwarded mentioning therein that as there was fire instant in the year 2004 in Police Station South, District Firozabad, the records prior to 2004 have been X burnt in respect of which at Police Station South being Case Crime No. 341/2004 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 395, 397, 436, 412 and 427 I.P.C & 7 C.L. Act and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damages to Property Act Vs. Dileep @ Bablu Kanja was registered."
7. On a pointed query being raised to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel whether there is any record pertaining to the lodging of the criminal case, the answer is in negative.
8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that once there is no proceedings pending either departmental or otherwise against the writ petitioner then it is not justifiable and it is not open for the respondents to withhold the said benefits. Since there is nothing on record to show that there is any departmental or even otherwise any proceedings initiated or pending against the writ petitioner, thus, this Court is of the opinion that the retiral benefits cannot be withheld.
9. Accordingly, mandamus is being issued to Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat to accord the benefits relatable to commutation of pension, gratuity amount and full pension along with arrears and interest with effect from 01.12.2017 within a period of three months from from the date of production of certified copy of the order subject to any requirement which is to be fulfilled by the writ petitioner. For facilitation and early disposal, self attested copy of the present petition, the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police shall be filed along the comprehensive representation by 17.10.2025.
10. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.) October 7, 2025 Rajesh