- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. This writ petition came up before us on 31-7-1995 in the presence of learned counsel for the parties. Therefore, on August 2, 1995, and again on August 17,1995, the case was heard in part. Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to submit a written argument, and in compliance thereof, a written argument is being presented today, which may be brought on record.
(2.) SRI Uma Shankar Bharti, the petitioner, has claimed retiral benefits by means of present writ petition. On January 5, 1994 a Bench consisting of Hon'ble V. N. Rhare and Hon'ble S. R. Misra, JJ. had directed the senior counsel for Government of India to file counter affidavit within six weeks. In compliance of the said direction, a counter affidavit has been filed in the present case. However, we find no factual denial with regard to conferment of retiral benefits. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a retired Naib Subedar from Army. He was retired from service on September 30, 1989. During service period of the petitioner, he was involved in a crime case. punishable under Section 302, IPC. This happened in 1986. Sessions Trial No. 136 of 1986 was held and learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur convicted the petitioner for the said offence. The petitioner was sentenced for life imprisonment by judgment and order, dated 22-9- 1988 passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ghazipur, The petitioner went in appeal and this court, while admitting appeal No. 2177 of 1988, granted bail to the petitioner on 23-9-1988. Since then, the petitioner is on bail. Thereafter, retirement of the petitioner took place on 30-9-1989. The petitioner, however, was not sanctioned any retiral benefits. The petitioner moved a petition of demand, dated 14-12-1992, which is contained as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, in reply whereof, the petitioner was served with a communication dated 15-7-1993 issued by the Record Officer, Bombay Engineer Group, Kirkee, Pune. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid communication are being quoted below : " (2) The detailed scrutiny of your service documents reveals that you were involved in a criminal case under Section 302, IPC while in service you were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on 22nd September, 1988 by Sri B. N. Shukla, II Additional Ses sional Judge, Ghazipur. You have preferred appeal against the said judgment. The conviction and sentence under Section 302, IPC have not been given effect to during the pendency of your Appeal No. 2177 of 88, with the order of Allahabad High Court dated 16th March, 1990. (3) Your case for grant of service pension submitted to Pension Sanc tioning Authority i. e. CDA (P) Allahabad has since been turned down for re-submission along with the final Judgment/deci sion of the court. (4) Your are, therefore, advised 'to get the Final Decision of the Allahabad High Court on your case expedited and submit the copy of the. same to enable us to process your claim for service pension. ''
(3.) IT is the aforesaid circumstances, which compelled the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction of this court, by means of the present writ petition. Having heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioner we find, that the main attach of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Regulation 4 of 'pension Regulations for the Army, 1961' the peti tioner is entitled to retiral benefits. Regulation 4;