Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. Considering the pure legal submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel stated that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit but would make oral submissions and the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of this Court, hence I proceed accordingly.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 16.1.2014 passed by respondent No. 5, by which the gratuity amount and other retiral benefits have been withheld on account of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner. He has further prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay the gratuity amount and other post retiral benefits i.e. leave eacashment, insurance amount, arrears, difference of regular pension since 1.2.2014 and other amount to him alongwith interest.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of a criminal case, retiral benefits and pension amount cannot be withheld and this issue has been considered and decided by this Court in Writ Petition No. 25554 of 2010 (Lalta Prasad Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 15.5.2013, Writ Petition No. 26972 of 2013 (Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 others) decided on 14.5.2013, Writ Petition No. 10099 of 2013, HC 11AP Mishir Lal v. The state of U.P. and others, decided on 26.2.2013 and Writ Petition No. 17141 of 2012, HC 122 AP Deo Narain Singh v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 20.7.2012. It is also submitted that one of the judgment of learned Single Judge was also assailed before a Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 84 (Defective) of 2013, which has also been dismissed.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of U.P. and 2 others v. Jai Prakash, Special Appeal Defective No. 1278 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013. The Division Bench relied on Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation, which empowers the State Government to recover from the pension the amount of loss found in judicial or departmental proceedings, to have been sustained by the Government by the negligence or fraud during his service. In the said case the Division Bench further found that Regulations 351, 351-A and 351-AA of the Civil Services Regulations operate in different fields. Regulation 351-AA specifically provides that where a departmental or judicial proceeding or any enquiry by the Administrative Tribunal is pending on the date of retirement, a provisional pension under Regulation 919-A may be sanctioned. Regulation 919-A (3) contains a specific prohibition on the payment of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity to a Government servant until the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceeding and the issue of final orders thereon.

6. However, Shri Vijay Gautam has placed reliance on a subsequent Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal Defective No. 416 of 2014 (State of U.P. and 3 others v. Faini Singh) decided on 25.4.2014, by which the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal filed by the State Government. The relevant para-21 of the judgment is reproduced as below :

“21. We may point out that a mere pendency of any judicial proceeding cannot be a ground to exercise the powers under Article 351AA read with Regulation 919A for withholding the retiral dues. The nature of allegations and the gravity of charge has to be taken into consideration by the competent authority before making an order to withhold the retiral dues. In case the pendency of any judicial proceeding is held to be sufficient, a minor offence or even a parking ticket may be a ground to withhold the pension of a retired employee. Such a situation is not contemplated under the powers conferred o