BRAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rishi Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

(2.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially recruited on the post of Sub Inspector on 2/5/1981 and subsequently he has superannuated on 21/12/2014 from the same post while serving at police station Naka, District Lucknow. Despite superannuation he has not been paid his amount of gratuity only on account of the fact that a criminal as registered against him in case crime No.255 of 1996 under Sec. 394 IPC at police station Naubasta, Kanpur. It is on account of pendency of the said criminal case where charge sheet has been filed in the court of competent jurisdiction on 8/4/1996 and the trial is still underway and only because of pendency of the said criminal case the payment of gratuity has been denied to the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the law in this regard is well settled by this Court in the case of Udai Narain Ojha Vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in writ A No.27391 of 2012 on 21/1/2020 where this Court taking into consideration the Full Bench decision in the case of Shivagopal VS. State of U.P. and 4 others passed in Special Appeal No.40 of 2017 as well as other provisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-