Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3370 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishnu Shanker Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to release regular pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits to the petitioner.
It is admitted on record that the petitioner has superannuated on 31.7.2018. While in service, a first information report was lodged against him on 17.10.2016 where after a charge-sheet was served upon him on 13.1.20217. Respondents, therefore, have only released provisional pension to petitioner and regular pension and gratuity has been withheld. Aggrieved by such action of the respondents, petitioner is before this Court.
Various judgments have been relied upon by the petitioner in order to claim benefit of regular pension and gratuity. Law, however, in the matter has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 40 of 2017 (Shivagopal Vs. State of U.P. and others). The Full Bench has categorically held that where judicial proceedings or disciplinary proceedings are pending, only provisional pension can be paid to an employee and not the regular pension.
So far as judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4818 of 2020 (Mohammad Majhar Vs. State of U.P. and others) is concerned, the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the action against the petitioner apparently was taken under Regulations 351 and 351-A of Civil Services Regulations. Judgment in the case of Mohammad Majhar (supra) otherwise has not taken note of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shivagopal (supra). No benefit, therefore, is liable to be granted to the petitioner relying upon the judgment in the case of Mohammad Majhar (supra).
So far as the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 31403 of 2013 (Prem Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) is concerned, this judgment also will not form any basis for grant of relief to petitioner in view of the subsequent full bench judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court dated 18.2.2020 in Civil Appeal No.1677-1678 of 2020 (Dr. Heera Lal Vs. State of Bihar and others). The question before the Supreme Court was in the context of certain circulars issued by the also have not constituted State of Bihar. Specific provision of the Bihar Pension Rules which came to be amended on 19.7.2012 fell for consideration before the Supreme Court. Rules relating to Bihar Pension Rules are not shown to be similar to the rules as are applicable in the State of U.P. The judgment in the case of Dr. Heera Lal (supra) also, therefore, will not help the petitioner.
In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can only be granted provisional pension in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shivagopal (supra). No mandamus, therefore, can be issued to release regular pension and gratuity.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021
n.u.
