In this bail-pendency matter, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition seeking full pension and arrears, adhering to the Full Bench ruling in Shivagopal which grants only provisional pension to petitioners in judicial proceedings.
Petitioner denied full pension and arrears; entitled only to provisional pension pending judicial resolution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43264 of 2016
Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Bind,V.K. Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The facts briefly stated is that against the petitioner while working as Gram Panchayat Adhikari a criminal case being Case Crime No. 224 of 1990, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., came to be instituted against him, consequently, petitioner was arrested and sent to jail on 7 June 1990. The petitioner upon his arrest, came to be placed under suspension. The suspension order was subsequently revoked on 17 December 1999, he came to be reinstated. Petitioner, thereafter, retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 January 2001. In the criminal trial, petitioner came to be convicted on 20 December 2010. Petitioner was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court in which petitioner has been enlarged on bail.
In this backdrop, petitioner by the instant writ petition, seeks the following relief:
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of the arrears of salary, arrears of pension and current pension as per law and further to release all the consequential benefits in accordance with law."
Learned Standing Counsel, at the out set, submits that during the pendency of the judicial proceedings in view of Article 351A of Civil Services Regulations, petitioner is entitled to provisional pension and not full pension and gratuity as mandated by this Court in Full Bench decision rendered in Shivagopal Versus State of U.P. and others, 2019 SCC OnLine All 2239 : (2019) 4 All LJ 323 (FB) : (2019) 135 ALR 656 (FB) : 2019 Lab IC 3009 (FB).
On being confronted, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the legal proposition and on query submits that the petitioner is receiving provisional pension.
In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed at this stage in terms of the Full Bench decision rendered in Shivagopal (supra).
Order Date :- 24.9.2019 K.K. Maurya
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner in criminal judicial proceedings is entitled to full pension and gratuity or only provisional pension under Article 351A of Civil Services Regulations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shivagopal Versus State of U.P. and othersApplied¶9
Shivagopal Versus State of U.P. and others, 2019 SCC OnLine All 2239 : (2019) 4 All LJ 323 (FB) : (2019) 135 ALR 656 (FB) : 2019 Lab IC 3009 (FB)
Rajeshwar Singh
State Of U.P.
Suneet Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
