- (1.) Heard Shri Rajeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) By means of this writ petition a challenge has been made to an order dated 17.12.2014 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki intimating the petitioner about his impending retirement on 31.12.2014 and also communicating that in view of Government Order dated 28.10.1980, provisional pension of Rs. 14,305/- and admissible allowances payable per month was being sanctioned but the gratuity would be payable only after conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against him.
(3.) The challenge is primarily on the ground that there is no provision under which the gratuity of the petitioner could be withheld. Reference has been made in this regard to Regulation 351-A, 351-AA and 919-A of the Civil Service Regulations as also the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the decision reported in Shyam Narayan Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2014 32 LCD 381. It has been submitted that no financial loss has been caused on account of any action of the petitioner, therefore, gratuity can not be withheld. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bengali Babu Misra Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2003 50 AllLR 538 as also another decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Bal Bhardwaj Vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and another,2007 10 ADJ 561 (LB)(DB).;