Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2878 of 2019 Petitioner :- Suresh Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Desh Raj Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
This petition has been preferred for release of Gratuity, Provident Fund and other retiral dues consequent to the petitioner having been superannuated on 30 June 2017. The final release of retiral benefits appears to have been withheld consequent to the petitioner being named as an accused in case crime No. 16 of 2010. The scope of power conferred on the respondents under Regulation 351AA read with Regulation 919A had fallen for consideration before this Court in Writ-A No. 24624 of 2017 (Krishna Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) wherein it was held as follows:-
"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."
Learned Standing Counsel states that subject to all contentions on merits being left open, the claim of the petitioner shall be duly attended to and disposed of by the second respondent in accordance with law and bearing in mind the principles laid down in Krishna Chandra Pandey. It is further stated that the exercise of consideration shall be concluded with expedition and preferably within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Accordingly this petition shall stand disposed of in light of the statement noted above.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 faraz