- (1.) Hargovind Singh is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61457 of 2015 ( Retired Head Consddtable, Hargovind Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) dismissing the claim of appellant for release of full pension. Brief background of the case as is reflected from the pleadings set out that appellant was working as Constable in U.P. Police Department. In the year 2009 when appellant was posted as Constable at District Farrukhabad, while appellant was deputed the work alongwith other constable to produce one Kripal alias Fakkar before the Court of Magistrate, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad on 16.01.2009, due to negligence of police, one accused person namely Kripal alias Fakkar escaped from the police custody and in reference of said incident, FIR has been lodged in Case Crime No. 28 of 2009, under Sections 223 and 224 IPC, Police Station Mau Darwaja, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. This much is also clear that in the said criminal case, after investigation has been carried out, charge sheet has been filed, trial in question is stated to be still pending and appellant has attained the age of superannuation. Thereafter, order dated 23.04.2014 has been passed whereby provisional pension has been accorded in consonance with Government Order dated 28.10.1980 on the ground that criminal case is pending in Case Crime No. 28 of 2009, under Sections 223 and 224 IPC, Police Station Mau Darwaja, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant contended with vehemence that learned Single Judge has erred in law in rejecting claim of appellant whereas criminal case has no relevance with the payment that is to be ensured to the appellant, and at no point of time, any pecuniary loss has been caused by the appellant and accordingly special appeal deserves to be allowed. Claim has been resisted by learned Standing Counsel by contending that here appellant has been charge sheeted, criminal trial has been on going and once criminal charge is in reference of discharge of his duty, rightful decision has been taken in accordance with the provision of Civil Service Regulation 351-A read with Regulation 919-A(3) as well as Government Order dated 28.10.1980.
(2.) In order to appreciate respective arguments this Court proceeds to examine the Government Order dated 28.10.1980 as well as Government Order dated 28.07.1989. Relevant extract of the aforesaid Government Orders is being extracted below: Government Order 28.10.1980 588966-1 Perusal of aforementioned Government Order would go to show that said Government order deals with the grant of interim pension and withholding of the gratuity qua superannuated employees against whom departmental proceedings, judicial proceeding or inquiry by Tribunal/Vigilance is going on. In this background the aforementioned Government Order mentions that against an incumbent, against whom at the point of time, when an incumbent attained the age of superannuation, if departmental inquiry, judicial proceeding are going on, or an enquiry by Tribunal/Vigilance is going on or is contemplated then interim pension in all eventuality be paid and no gratuity amount be paid till proceeding are concluded or final decision is taken. It further mentions that from gratuity amount, said amount be deducted in regard to which observations have been made in the administrative /proceedings referred to. Thereafter terms and conditions for release of interim pension has been mentioned.
(3.) This Court after noticing the aforesaid Government Order proceeds to take note of other provisions, to answer the issue involved. Under Rule 9 (1) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 Government has right to recover from a gratuity or family pension sanctioned under the same circumstances as recoveries can be effected from an ordinary pension under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. A Government Servant after attaining the age of superannuation is entitled for pension in accordance with the provisions of Civil Service Regulations ( as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh). According to paragraph 41 of Civil Service Regulations pension has been defined in following manner. "Except when the term "Pension" is used in contradistinction to gratuity "Pension" includes Gratuity." Regulations 351 and 351-A relates to withdrawing a pension or any part of it and to order the recovery from the pension respectively. Civil Service Regulation 351 provides for as follows: "351. Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension. The State Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the State Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of pension under this regulation shall be final and conclusive." Regulation 351-A is as follows: "351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or Judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement.";