Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8180 of 2018 Petitioner :- Syed Razi Ahmad Rizvi Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Lal Srivastava,Bipin Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Services of the petitioner were brought to an end by an order dated 20th February, 1993, passed by respondent No. 2, i.e., District Magistrate, Budaun. This order had been challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 6726 of 1993 (Syed Razi Ahmad Rizvi vs. District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate (D), Budaun and another), which is still stated to be pending. Right of the petitioner to receive retiral benefits upon attaining the age of superannuation would ultimately be determined in the pending writ petition. The rejection of petitioner's claim for pension vide order dated 20th October, 2017, in such circumstances, requires no interference. Remedy of the petitioner lies in seeking appropriate protection in the pending Writ Petition No. 6726 of 1993.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that because the order terminating the petitioner's services is stayed, therefore, he is also entitled to release of retiral benefits. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Chandraveer Singh vs. M.B. Mathur, 1990 ALJ 31.
The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. Merits of the order of termination is yet to be gone into by this Court in the pending writ petition. Unless the issue is finally determined by this Court, the petitioner would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits. The Division Bench judgment has no applicability in the present case, inasmuch as in the case before Division Bench in Chandraveer Singh (supra), the termination order had been stayed but salary was not being released. In this context, the Division Bench directed release of salary. This is not the case at hand. The petitioner wants payment of retiral benefits, which would be dependent upon the final outcome of the writ petition. The anxiety on the part of the petitioner to seek any adjudication in the pending writ petition and to file a fresh writ petition for the purpose of payment of retiral benefits is not liable to be appreciated. The petitioner only wants benefit of interim order without any final adjudication of the cause on merits. Such appoach on the part of the petitioner cannot be encouraged in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of Shyam Lal Kanaujia vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (3) ESC 1405. The said writ petition related to withholding of retiral benefits on account of pendency of the criminal proceedings. The facts of the case in Shyam Lal Kanaujia (supra) are wholly distinct and has no applicability in the instant matter.
In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 LN Tripathi