Allahabad High Court
Gauri Shankar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. ... on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1501 of 2023
Petitioner :- Gauri Shankar Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Secrt. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyesh Pradhan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Suyesh Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel appearing for the State-opposite parties.
2. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
" Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 12/01/2023 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya whereupon the retiral dues/pension of petitioner which includes gratuity, full time pension, Bonus and Group Life Insurance has been denied to be paid to the petitioner subject to final decision of state appeal against final judgment and order dated 15/09/2022 in case of State versus Gauri Shankar Pandey and Others bearing Trail Case No.704 of 2022 which has been decided by Ld. Court of Special Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad as contained as Annexure No.1;
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing opposite parties to immediately release the retiral dues/pension which includes gratuity, full time pension, Bonus and Group Life Insurance in favor of the petitioner;
(iii)...
(iv)..."
3. The petitioner, who was employed as Constable in Uttar Pradesh Civil Police faced a criminal trial for an offence under Section 223 of the Indian Penal Code along with two other police constables. Learned Special Judge-II, Faizabad vide order dated 15.09.2022 has acquitted all the three constables of the offence including the petitioner herein. In the meantime, the petitioner has got retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2018.
4. After the petitioner got acquitted by the learned Magistrate, he moved an application dated 23.09.2022 for releasing his pension and other retiral dues, however, the said application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 12.01.2023 on the ground that against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2022, the State has filed an appeal which is pending. Similar stand has been taken in several paragraphs of the counter affidavit that against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2022 passed by learned Magistrate acquitting the petitioner and two other constables, an appeal has been preferred.
5. This Court finds pleadings in the counter affidavit little strange inasmuch as in the pleadings it has been stated that "prosecution has filed an State Appeal Sessions Trial No.704 of 2022: State versus Gauri Shankar Pandey and others." An appeal cannot be numbered as State Appeal Sessions Trial No.704 of 2022. 704 is a trial case number in which the petitioner has been acquitted.
6. This Court has directed the Standing Counsel to make the stand clear after verifying the record whether the appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.09.2022 passed by learned Special Magistrate in Trial Case No.704 of 2022. Sri Ram Pratap Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel fairly submits that no appeal has yet been filed against the order dated 15.09.2022 acquitting the petitioner and two other constables.
7. This Court in a comprehensive judgment and order dated 08.08.2014 passed in Writ A No.66930 of 2013, Rajeev Sharma vs State of U.P. & 3 Ors has held that retiral dues of an employee who has been acquitted for a criminal charge during trial cannot be withheld, if the appeal has been filed and the judgment and order of acquittal has not been stayed. Mere pendency of the appeal would not entitle the State to withhold the pension and retiral dues of an employee who has been acquitted by the learned trial court for criminal charge(s). Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered several judgments of the Supreme Court on this aspect and has held that the State is bound to release retiral dues of such an employee with interest if learned trial court has acquitted the employee of a criminal charge and the appeal has not been decided.
8. In view of the aforesaid, and considering the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajeev Sharma (supra), present petition is allowed.
9. The respondents are directed to release retirement dues of the petitioner within a period of 2 months from today.
10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned authority by the petitioner himself for necessary compliance.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 15.3.2023
prateek
