JANARDAN SAHAI and ABHINAVA UPADHYA, JJ. - (1.) The petitioner was an Assistant Engineer in the U.P. Power Corporation. It appears that a criminal case under Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and for certain other offences is pending against him. The petitioner retired on June 30, 2000. He is aggrieved by the order dated September 23, 2000 of the U.P. Power Corporation by which the gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld pending vigilance proceedings which appear to have preceded the criminal case. However the petitioner has been permitted provisional pension. A portion of this order by which gratuity has been withheld has been challenged by the petitioner.
(2.) We have heard Sri Ranjit Saxena counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Mehrotra counsel for the U.P. Power Corporation. It is stated by Sri Anil Mehrotra learned Standing counsel for the Corporation that the Civil Service Regulations dealing with the subject pension and gratuity have been adopted by the Corporation and the arguments were heard on the foundation that the Civil Service Regulations were applicable. It is also stated by Sri Anil Mehrotra that the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 as well as the U.P. Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961 are applicable and have been adopted by the Corporation.
(3.) Sri Ranjit Saxena, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government does not have any power to withhold pension under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. According to him gratuity and pension are conceptually different and pension alone can be withheld or forfeited under Regulation 351-A. A Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others 1999-II-LLJ-415 (All) has taken the view that gratuity can be withheld under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and pension under Regulation 351-A. Sri Ranjit Saxena however placed reliance upon a recent decision in Bhagwati Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Basic Education decided on September 10, 2007 (MANU/UP/1246/2007) in which the learned Judges have held that gratuity is not covered under Regulation 351-A and that recovery from gratuity can be made under separate rules framed by the State Government, namely Rule 10(1) of U.P. Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961 and Rule 9 of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. The Division Bench in Bhagwati Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Basic Education (supra) did not follow Krishna Kumar's decision on the ground that Section 4(6)(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which provides for forfeiture of gratuity and which was relied upon in Krishna Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others (supra) is not applicable to persons holding posts under the State Government or the Central Government in view of Section 2(e) of that Act.;