HARNAM SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certi orari by quashing the order dated 11.9.2008 and 27.7.2005 passed by Superintendent of Police ( M) Intelligence Head Quarter,Lucknow. Vide order dated 27.7.2005, the the second higher pay scale was not sanctioned to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of a criminal case being case crime No. 415 of 1996 under sections 420,467, 471,120 B, 504 and 506 IPC relating to police station Maha Nagar. During the pendency of the aforesaid case in the court, the petitioner retired on31.12.2007.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that on 11.9.2008 only an interim pension was sanctioned in his favour. Because of the pendency of the aforementioned criminal case all other retiremental dues,including gratuity were with held. During the course of arguments, the grievance of the petitioner was only to the extent that the gratuity and the other retiremental benefits could not have been withheld because of the pendency of a criminal case which had no relation with the department. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforementioned criminal case is a matter between the two parties, no loss of any nature was occasioned to the department because of the said alleged offence. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on several case laws and has argued that the stoppage of gratuity and other retiremental dues cannot be withheld simply because a criminal case is pending. Such an order as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, is, absolutely illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench pronouncement of this Court in the case of Bangali Babu Misra vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2003 (3) AWC 1760 (LB).In the said case the petitioner was caught in a trap case and subsequently he was suspended and in that case the court directed that the entire post retiral dues of the petitioner including pension, gratuity, leave en -cashment, group insurance be paid to the petitioner. Section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 reads as under,