Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5061 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shivchand Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sagar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions and apprises the Court that the entire amount towards G.P.F. of the petitioner has been released. He further apprises the Court that the petitioner came to be named in a criminal case in connection with which he was arrested and thereafter retired from service.
That only leaves the Court to consider the issue of grant of pensionary benefits. It becomes pertinent to note that the issue of release of pension during pendency of judicial proceedings are governed by Regulation 919-A of the Civil Services Regulations. Dealing with the impact of that provision on the question of release of pensionary benefits, this Court in Krishna Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others [2019 ADJOnline 0038] held thus:-
"As is evident from the principles enunciated in Faini Singh, while recognizing the power of the State to withhold gratuity and to fix a provisional pension during the pendency of judicial or departmental proceedings, the Division Bench further proceeded to hold that the action of withholding such benefits must be preceded by due application of mind and consideration of whether the charges levelled against the employee were serious and related to grave misconduct. The Division Bench in Faini Singh further proceeded to observe that there must be a due application of mind by the respondents while invoking the provisions of Regulation 919- A, as to whether any pecuniary loss stood caused to the Government or whether the allegations against the employee were of a serious crime, grave misconduct or negligence during his service. The Division Bench, essentially, highlighted that while the power did exist, the same must be exercised with due circumspection and action not taken mechanically.
The subsistence of judicial proceedings or departmental inquiry against a retiring government servant would, at best, lead to a position where the State - respondents would be entitled to invoke these provisions. Independently and as was mandated by the Division Bench in Faini Singh, the competent authority must take into consideration the nature of allegations levelled, gravity of the charge against the retiring government servant, the role ascribed to the government servant in the commission of the crime, nature of offenses of which he is charged and other relevant factors. The decision to withhold would, thus, have to be taken upon due consideration of the above and other germane factors. "
In view of the aforesaid and the law as noticed above learned Standing Counsel submits that the fourth respondent shall duly evaluate the claim of the petitioner for release of pensionary benefits/payment of provisional pension in accordance with law, with expedition and preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a duly authenticated copy of this order.
Accordingly, this petition shall stand disposed of in light of the statement noted above.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Rakesh