Allahabad High Court
Pramod Chandra Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 10 July, 2018
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5455 of 2015
Petitioner :- Pramod Chandra Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakhar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Prakhar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the` State-respondents.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay gratuity and final pension to the petitioner ignoring the impugned order dated 22.06.2015, whereby the aforesaid payment/ dues have been denied to the petitioner for the reasons that the criminal case is pending against him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards some case laws which provide that the gratuity of the incumbent cannot be withheld on the basis of pendency of the criminal trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards para-18 of the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has categorically indicated that one Sri Syed Amjad Hussain Naqvi was the co-accused with the petitioner and the petitioner and Sri Naqvi have been granted interim order by this Court vide order dated 11.08.1993, has been paid the post retiral dues, for which, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
No specific reply to the contents of para-18 of the writ petition has been given in the counter affidavit.
However, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards order dated 26.02.2016 passed in Writ A No.47540 of 2015 and two other connected matters wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has been pleased to refer the similar controversy to the larger Bench making request to Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench. Further, vide order dated 05.10.2017 passed in Writ A No.9126 of 2015 and one other connected writ petition, in which, the learned Single Judge of this Court has referred the identical issue in larger Bench making request to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of larger Bench. Therefore, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that this writ petition may be decided finally after the judgment of the larger Bench.
If one Sri Syed Amjad Hussain Naqvi has been paid his all retiral dues as averred in para-18 of the writ petition, the petitioner should also be paid the same benefits.
Therefore, list this case in the week commencing 30.07.2018 to enable the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter as to whether the identically placed person, namely, Sri Syed Amjad Hussain Naqvi has been paid his all post retiral dues and if so, why the said benefits have been denied to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there is one more employee who has been paid his all post retiral dues despite the fact that the criminal case is still pending against him, but learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware about the details of such employee.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner is granted a week's time to file the supplementary affidavit indicating the details of that employee.
Order Date :- 10.7.2018
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
