- (1.) The Petitioner retired as Asstt. District Election Officer, Gorakhpur on 30.4.2000 on attaining the age of 58 years. His retiral dues were not settled with him on the ground that the criminal case under Sec. , , , , IPC and Sec. of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is pending against him. By this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for settlement of the entire retiral dues. In the affidavit of Shri G.D. Chaudhary, Sec. Officer in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, U.P. Lucknow it is stated in paras 26 and 27 as follows: "26. That in reply to the contents 29 of the writ petition it is submitted that since a criminal case is pending against the Petitioner hence he is entitled only for provisional pension as admitted by the Petitioner he has already taken a cheque of Rs. 5,011/ -as a provisional pension from the month of January, 2003 and further Respondent District Election Officer, Bareilly has already forwarded the concerned papers in respect of provisional pension of the Petitioner, to the Treasury Officer, Bareilly for his regular provisional pension. The copy of the order dated 16.1.2001 passed by District Election Officer, Bareilly is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure CA -3 to this counter affidavit. 27. That the contents of para 30 of the writ petition are not admitted as it stands. In fact as clear from the proceeding para Petitioner is getting provisional pension and he has already been paid the subsistence allowance for his suspension period. In case Petitioner is acquitted from criminal court his post retiral benefits gratuity, provident fund, group insurance etc. shall be considered by the authorities concerned after obtaining the certified copy of the acquittal order from the concerned court."
(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states and has annexed the judgment of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Gorakhpur in Special Sessions Trial Court No. 5 of 2000, State v/s. Pancham Lal and Ors. under Sec. , , , , IPC and Sec. of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in which the Petitioner was acquitted of the charges by judgment dated 13.8.2009. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish that M/s Arjun Ji & sons, the contractor (who had supplied the furnitures) had submitted forged bills or that Shri Pancham Lal and Shri Amrit Lal (the Petitioner) were paid any illegal gratification for clearing the bills.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel wants to find out if there is any appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal.;