Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Prasad Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 26 September, 2023
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:62106
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7237 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Distt. Lucknow, And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties for payment of provisional pension equal to maximum pension as enunciated in a number of case laws.
3. It has been submitted that earlier while in service on the post of peon, petitioner was placed under suspension on lodging of criminal case no.1175 of 2006, under Sections 304B, 498A and 201 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioner was convicted where against he has preferred Criminal Appeal No.415 of 2009 which was admitted and sentence of imprisonment was suspended while enlarging petitioner on bail vide order dated 30.03.2009. Since petitioner was not being paid any of his dues, he filed Writ Petition No.7459 (S/S) of 2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.12.2013 directing opposite parties to consider petitioner's grievance regarding release of all such post retiral benefits which could not be withheld due to pendency of criminal case.
4. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, vide orders dated 18.02.2014 and 22.09.2014, some of post retiral benefit due to petitioner were directed to be paid but with regard to remaining post retiral benefits, petitioner filed claim petition before U.P. Public Services Tribunal, which was dismissed and against which a writ petition before this Court is pending. It is submitted that during pendency of aforesaid proceedings, provisional pension was being paid to petitioner which however has now been stopped without any written order. It is further submitted that even in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.3127(SB) of 2022, opposite parties had filed a counter affidavit clearly admitting the fact that the petitioner was being paid provisional pension.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shivagopal versus State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2019(37) Lucknow Civil Decision 1859 to submit that petitioner would be entitled to provisional pension even during pendency of criminal proceedings.
6. It is submitted that with regard to aforesaid grievance, petitioner has already submitted a representation but seeks liberty to file a fresh representation before the concerned authority. At present learned counsel for petitioner restricts his prayer for a final decision with regard to same.
7. Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation before opposite party No.3 i.e. District Magistrate, Lucknow. In case such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided in the light of judgment of this Court which shall be supplied by petitioner.
8. Decision with regard to same shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority.
9. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2023
Subodh/-
