Manish Mathur, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Jagdambika Prasad Tripathi appearing on behalf of the petitioner while notices on the behalf of the opposite party nos.1 to 3 have been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) By means of the present petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1 to take a decision on the matter referred to it by the opposite party no.2 vide letters dated 15.05.2018 and 20.09.2019 regarding sanction of pension, commutation of pension, gratuity and other post retiral dues of the petitioner. As per the averments made in the writ petition the petitioner was initially appointed as Marketing Inspector in 1973 and thereafter superannuated on 31.12.2007 from the post of Senior Market Inspector. In the meantime criminal proceedings were initiated against him u/s 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. and Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act 1955 in the concerned Court at Unnao, which are still pending. In the aforesaid matter disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2005 which culminated vide order dated 18.02.2008 without passing any order of punishment. On account of the fact that the petitioner was not being paid his post retiral benefits, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 25241 (S/S) of 2017 which was disposed of by means of the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 directing the concerned authorities to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner by reasoned and speaking order. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the order dated 18.05.2018 has been passed in which the matter has been referred to the State Government to take appropriate decision for payment of post retiral benefits ignoring the pendency of criminal proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the State Government has not yet taken a decision due to which the present petition has been filed.
(3.) So far as the dispute regarding payment of pensionary benefits during the pendency of the criminal proceedings is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Honb'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and others reported in, 2013 12 SCC 210 in which it has been specifically held that the State is empowered to withhold or withdraw pensionary benefits to any employee pending departmental or judicial proceedings only in case of any provision to that effect in the service regulations governing the employees. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the service regulations pertaining to the petitioner do not contain any such provision for withholding the pensionary benefits of the petitioner pending any criminal proceedings as has also been recommended by the concerned authority by means of letter dated 18.05.2018 annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition.;