Allahabad High Court
Randhir Singh Pno No 772290799 vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 595 of 2021
Petitioner :- Randhir Singh Pno No 772290799
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashwant Pratap Singh,Sanjai Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Petitioner is before this Court questioning the validity of the order impugned dated 20.12.2018 passed by the third respondent, whereby, his regular pension and gratuity has been stopped due to pendency of the criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 552/2002 (State Vs. Randhir Singh), under Sections 342, 302, 34 IPC, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar. Further request has been made commanding the respondents to ensure payment of arrear of salary as well as post retiral benefits along with interest within stipulated time.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in Police Department on 10.10.1977. He was promoted on the post of Sub Inspector on 17.9.1990 and on 12.11.1999 on the post of Inspector. After completion of 39 years of service, he was promoted on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police at Ghaziabad on 12.7.2016. During service tenure of the petitioner, when he was posted as Station House Officer, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar in the year 2002, an incident of road hold up and bus robbery took place on 3.8.2002 at 23.15 O' clock. In this regard, the bus driver namely Amat Singh II lodged F.I.R. on 4.8.2002 at 00.30 O' clock. Subsequently, the S.H.O.(petitioner) lodged FIR on 3.30 A.M. in respect of the said incident. It appears that the matter was investigated by the CBCID and on 31.3.2004, final report bearing F.R. No. 201/2004 was submitted by the DSP, CBCID Meerut. After noticing to all concerned, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar accepted the final report vide order dated 21.5.2004. Thereafter, protest petition was preferred by parents of the deceased on 10.11.2004 to recall the order dated 21.5.2004. Eventually the Chief Judicial Magistrate Bulandshahar recalled the order dated 21.5.2004 by an order dated 3.1.2005, took cognizance in the matter and straight-way summoned the petitioner and other co-accused to face the trial. It is being claimed that the trial of Criminal Case No. 10767 of 2018 (State Vs. Randhir Singh) is still pending for consideration before the trial court. By the order impugned, the third respondent has stopped payment of gratuity amounting Rs. 13,97,437/- to the petitioner on account of pendency of aforesaid criminal case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even though in the aforesaid criminal case initially final report had been accepted by the competent court and only on the protest petition, summoning order was passed and the same is pending for consideration. On account of pendency of said criminal case, the gratuity of the petitioner could not be stopped. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in H.C. Sughar Singh (Retired) vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), 2004 LawSuit(All)236 dated 27.02.2004 and Kameshwar Pasad vs. State of U.P. and others, W.P. no.21773/2009 dated 25.04.2011.
Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that in view of the Government Order dated 28.10.1980, final pension and gratuity cannot be accorded as admittedly criminal trial is pending for consideration and as such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned.
Heard rival submissions and perused the record.
Through supplementary affidavit, it is being claimed that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad made recommendation to the Finance Controller, U.P. Police Headquarter, Prayagraj vide letter dated 15.02.2019 to grant pension and gratuity to the petitioner on the ground that other police personnel, namely, S.I. Yogendra Singh, H.C. Totaram, Raghuraj Singh, Constable Jitendra (summoned along with the petitioner) have already been granted their retiral benefits including pension and gratuity.
In the facts and circumstances, as the similarly situated police personnel who have been summoned along with petitioner have already been granted their retiral benefits, the Authority while passing the order impugned has discriminated the case of the petitioner which is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the order impugned cannot sustain and is hereby set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The matter is relegated to the third respondent to decide it afresh taking into consideration the recommendation so made by Senior Superintendent of Police Moradabad vide letter dated 15.2.2019, wherein similarly situated persons have been accorded relief, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 18.3.2021
A.K.Srivastava
