By the Court.—We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of writ petition.

It appears from the pleadings of writ petition that the petitioner was appointed on 1.11.1975 as a Medical Officer by the U.P. Public Service Commission and joined as such on 12.12.1975. He was superannuated on 31.5.2011 from the post of Joint Director, Health Service, Government of U.P. His service conditions are governed by the provisions of U.P. Medical and Health Services Rules, 2004 and the amended provisions of the Act as well as Rules framed thereunder. In the month of May, 2005, he was promoted as Joint Director and on 28.4.2010 he was given further promotion to the post of Additional Director. Thus on promotion to the post of Additional Director, he relinquished the charge and submitted the charge certificate. On that date there was no pending disciplinary proceeding whatsoever against him. However, the said charge certificate was not counter signed by the Director (Administration), Department of Health. On an oral inquiry it was informed to the petitioner that in some disciplinary proceedings a censure entry was recorded for the year 2009-10 against him. It was also informed to the petitioner that a criminal case had been registered in respect of the same allegations on 14.1.2009 under Section 384/304 IPC vide crime No. 45 of 2009. On investigation, a final report was submitted on 31.3.2010.

In this background, learned counsel for petitioner argued that without a valid reason, petitioner’s post retiral benefits have been withheld by the respondents-State. It is also a contention of learned counsel for petitioner that in criminal case the Investigating Officer has already submitted the final report.

2. On the other hand, learned counsel for State, Ms. Kamla Singh, tried to justify the order passed by the respondents-State.

On due consideration of rival submissions, we do not find a good reason for withholding of the pensionary benefits of petitioner merely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case wherein also the final report has since been submitted.

3. Hon’ble the Apex Court as well as this Court in the judgments on this issue has held that pendency of criminal case would not be a ground to detain the release of pensionary benefits to the employee.

Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents-State to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner after completing necessary procedural formalities, within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Moreover, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner as referred to hereinabove was only on account of the allegations made in the criminal case wherein a final report has already been submitted.

Writ Petition is disposed of with directions to release the post retiral dues including the pension to the petitioner

——————