Leela @ Leeladhar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 10353 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4609 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Leela @ Leeladhar
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Bahadur Shivhare
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virpratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties

Petitioner is before this Court with a request commanding the respondents to release the pension and other retrial benefits of the petitioner within stipulated period.

At the very outset, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.C.S.C. raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the respondent no. 2 stopped the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner only because of one criminal case i.e. Case Crime No. 1241 of 2011, under Sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. He has placed reliance upon the order dated 7.4.2021 passed by Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur whereby the petitioner has already been accorded provisional pension since 1.3.2021 for a period of six months and as such, he submits that no reprieve can be extended to petitioner at this stage. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Shivagopal vs. State of U.P. and others, delivered in Special Appeal No.40 of 2017 on 8.5.2019 to submit that in terms of Article 351-AA and Article 919-A(1)/(2) of Civil Service Regulations petitioner is entitled to be paid provisional pension even if regular pension is not sanctioned to him. He has invited attention of the Court to para 78(iii) of the judgment, which is extracted hereinafter:-

"(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))"

In the facts and circumstances brought on record, the action of the respondents in withholding regular pension to petitioner cannot be faulted in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shivagopal (supra). However, considering the provisions of Civil Service Regulations the authorities were expected to consider and release provisional pension even in the event regular pension was not sanctioned to the petitioner. The records however reveal that provisional pension was in fact sanctioned to the petitioner. There would be no justification for the respondents to deny provisional pension once the provisions of Civil Service Regulations clearly contemplated entitlement in that regard.

In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The payment of regular pension would abide by the final adjudication of criminal/judicial proceedings.

Order Date :- 16.8.2021

A.K.Srivastava