- (1.) HEARD Smt. Archana Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) AFTER some deliberations and going through the materials on record, it has emerged that the petitioner is an Assistant Engineer of Public Works Department and has retired from service on 31.10.2006 after attaining the age of superannuation. When the petitioner approached the authority concerned for his post retiral benefits, he was informed that due to pendency of departmental inquiry his post retiral benefits cannot be settled. This Court has noted that in respect of some events which took place in the year 1996, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the date of retirement i.e. 31.10.2006. Ultimately the departmental inquiry was concluded and a specific order has been passed by the State Government, appointing authority on 16.4.2009, closing the departmental inquiry. No penalty was imposed against the petitioner. A perusal of the order dated 16.4.2009 reveals that in fact the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges levelled against him. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner has approached the U.P. Public Service Tribunal by filing a Claim Petition No. 435 of 2006, which was allowed in his favour vide judgment and order dated 29.1.2010. A photo copy of the judgment and order passed by Tribunal is taken on record. The operative portion of the judgment rendered on 29.1.2010 is quoted below: In view of the aforementioned observations, the claim petition is allowed and the opp. parties are directed to release all the retiral and pensionary benefits of the petitioner forthwith withheld and consider the case of the petitioner for notional promotion on the higher post from the date of promotion of his junior. The petitioner is also entitled to simple interest @ 10% per annum on the withheld amount of retiral benefits from the due date till the actual date of payment. The impugned orders Annexure -1 and 3 and Annexure 1 -A have become inoperative and ineffective and void due to termination of disciplinary proceeding vide order dated 16.4.2009. There is no order as to costs.
(3.) NOW viewing the matter with all these subsequent developments, it is amply clear that there is no departmental, judicial or any other kind of inquiry pending against the petitioner. Whatever adverse existed against the petitioner on the date of his superannuation has now come to an end. The service record of the petitioner appears to be clean. It is noted that the Tribunal has rendered the judgment on 29.1.2010 and even after six months as per the learned Counsel for the petitioner he has not been paid any pension, gratuity etc. As per the schemes of U.P. Public Service Tribunal, the direction contained in the judgment and order of the Tribunal has to be complied with within three months, failing which an Execution Certificate is issued by the Tribunal for ensuring compliance of its order.;