RAJA SHANKER DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS alleged by the petitioner are that he was working as Atirikta Mukhya Adhikari Zila Parishad, Varanasi from 2 -4 -1983 till July, 1987. Thereafter he was posted as Additional District Development Officer, Azamgarh from August, 1987 and worked as such till date of his retirement in the year 1988 on attaining the age of superannuation. By an order dated 5 -1 -1989 he was re -appointed for a period of one year on the above post and he joined as Additional District Development Officer, Azamgarh on 17 -1 -1989. While he was working as Additional Chief Officer Zila Parishad, Varanasi he detected embezzlement of huge sum by one Omkar Nath Upadhayaya the then Cashier in Zila Parishad Varanasi and lodged the First Information Report in the year 1989. By an order dated 16th May, 1992 the State Government directed respondent No. 2, the Commissioner Gram Vikas State of U.P. Lucknow to make payment of pension and gratuity etc. to the petitioner. Copy of the said order is appended as Annexure 4 to the writ peti ­tion. The petitioner was paid his pension up to January, 1992. Respondent No. 1, however, by communications dated 23 -4 -1992 and 12 -10 -92 stopped payment of pension to the petitioner on the ground that the matter of embezzlement in Zila Parishad Varanasi was under investiga ­tion. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 7 -11 -1992 directed respondent No. 3 to stop payment of petitioner's pension and gratuity. The petitioner made various rep ­resentations and despite the fact that the petitioner had not embezzled any amount and no charge -sheet was submitted against him and no enquiry was pending against him, for no rhyme or reason payment of pension and gratuity was stopped just to harass him as he had reported the embez ­zlement. The orders of the State Govern ­ment and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 directing, stoppage of payment of pension and gratuity were illegal, unjustified and violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It was further alleged that the pay scales were revised from January, 1986 when the petitioner was working with respondent No. 4 and on account of the revised pay scale he was entitled to get Rs. 10, 855/ - as arrears of salary for which he made repre ­sentations dated 16 -10 -90 and 16 -11 -90. The Joint Secretary State of Uttar Pradesh by letter dated 17 -11 -90 as contained in Annexure 10 to the writ petition directed the Additional Chief Officer, Zila Parishad Varanasi to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner but the Additional Chief Officer Zila Parishad Varanasi did not made payment on the pretext that the State Government has stopped the pay ­ment of salary though it was admitted that a sum of Rs. 10.855/ - was due to the petitioner as arrears of salary which is evi ­dent from letter dated 20 -8 -91. Annexure 11 to the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner made several representations to the Secretary Panchayati Raj U.P. Luck -now but with no result.

(2.) ON the above facts the petitioner prayed for grant of following reliefs: -

(3.) FOR respondent No. 3 one Sri Suresh Narain Tiwari, District Develop ­ment Officer, Azamgarh filed counter -af ­fidavit in which it was stated that the petitioner superannuated on 30 -11 -88 and was re -appointed for a period of one year in the year 1989. On the basis of services rendered by the petitioner directions were issued by the State Government for pay ­ment of provisional pension to the petitioner and the same was being regular ­ly paid to the petitioner. Since the entire dispute relates to the period of service rendered by the petitioner (n District Varanasi on the post of Upper Mukhya Adhikari Zila Parishad Varanasi and the matter in question is being enquired into and is under consideration of the State Government, the matter of payment of regular pension to the petitioner shall be taken up only after decision of the State Government.