Kamta Prasad Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Home Deptt.Civil Sectt.Lko. and Ors.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2012

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19784 of 2016

¶4

Petitioner :- Kamta Prasad Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Home Deptt.Civil Sectt.Lko. And Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava,Ram Tirth Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional C.S.C. for the Staterespondents.

¶8

During the pendency of the present writ petition, the sole petitioner had expired on 11.09.2023 and his legal heirs have been substituted by making an amendment in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 13.02.2023.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 12.01.2016 has been passed by referring to a Government order dated 28.10.2012 whereas the date of the Government Order is 28.10.1980, which has wrongly been transcribed in the impugned order and admitted by the answering respondents in their counter affidavit.

¶10

It is further submitted that Late Kamta Prasad Verma had attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.04.2012. The post retiral dues were paid to him except the gratuity and the leave encashment against which, Late Kamta Prasad Verma had approached the authorities by making a representation which has been rejected by impugned order dated 12.01.2016 on the ground that 9 criminal cases are pending against the petitioner i.e. Late Kamta Prasad Verma and as per the Government Order dated 28.10.2012 whereas the correct date is 28.10.1980, the same shall not be paid till the finalization of the criminal proceedings.

¶11

The Counsel further contends that the Government Order dated 28.10.1980 has nowhere empowered the authorities to withhold the gratuity and the leave encashment during the pendency of the criminal case, hence the Government Order has wrongly been relied while rejecting the claim. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in a writ petition bearing No.

¶12

7371 (S/S) of 2010, Naseem Ahmad Ansari Vs. State of U.P ., & Harnam Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. , reported in 2012 (30) LCD 662 .

¶13

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has fairly submitted that after the demise of the accused in the criminal cases, it cannot be proceeded against his legal heirs and the criminal cases will come to an end after the demise of the accused like in the present case. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Government Order dated 28.10.1980 is not applicable in the present case by placing reliance on the judgments of this Court, is also not disputed.

¶14

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through records of the case, it is found that the impugned order has been passed on the ground that the criminal cases are pending against the petitioner (deceased Kamta Prasad Verma) and as per the Government Order dated 28.10.1980, the gratuity and leave encashment cannot be paid till the finalization of the criminal proceedings.

¶15

The Government Order dated 28.10.1980 does not provide that during pendency of criminal case, pension or other post retiral benefits can be withheld and the learned State Counsel has failed to bring before this Court on record that there is any provision under the law according to which the pension and other post retiral benefits of a government servant can be deferred or withheld during the pendency of a criminal case. The issue has already been decided by this Court in the case of Naseem Ahmad Ansari (supra) and Harnam Singh Yadav (supra).

¶16

In view of the discussions made herein above and the judgments of this Court, the impugned order dated 12.01.2016 is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law, hence the same is quashed .

¶17

The writ petition is allowed and the opposite party no. 5, Superintendent of Police, Barabanki is directed to make payment of gratuity and leave encashment to the legal heirs of Late Kamta Prasad Verma in accordance with law within a period to two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with permissible interest, as provided under the Gratuity Act.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 Lokesh Kumar

¶19

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamta Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. Thru Secy.Home Deptt.Civil Sectt.Lko. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamta Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. Thru Secy.Home Deptt.Civil Sectt.Lko. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkaran Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Sri Dharmeshwar Singh Srivstava and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Med. Health and Family Welf.andORS

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thorugh Its Secy.Dept.of P.W.D. Lucknow

Digambar Singh Pno. No. 062140557 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Rakesh Verma Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Finance and Another

Nand Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others