By the Court.—Hargovind Singh is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 9.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61457 of 2015 (Retired Head Consddtable, Hargovind Singh v. State of U.P. and others) dismissing the claim of appellant for release of full pension.

2. Brief background of the case as is reflected from the pleadings set out that appellant was working as Constable in U.P. Police Department. In the year 2009 when appellant was posted as Constable at District Farrukhabad, while appellant was deputed the work alongwith other constable to produce one Kripal alias Fakkar before the Court of Magistrate, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad on 16.1.2009, due to negligence of police, one accused person namely Kripal alias Fakkar escaped from the police custody and in reference of said incident, FIR has been lodged in Case Crime No. 28 of 2009, under Sections 223 and 224 IPC, Police Station Mau Darwaja, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. This much is also clear that in the said criminal case, after investigation has been carried out, charge-sheet has been filed, trial in question is stated to be still pending and appellant has attained the age of superannuation. Thereafter, order dated 23.4.2014 has been passed whereby provisional pension has been accorded in consonance with Government Order dated 28.10.1980 on the ground that criminal case is pending in Case Crime No. 28 of 2009, under Sections 223 and 224 IPC, Police Station Mau Darwaja, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad.

3. Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant contended with vehemence that learned Single Judge has erred in law in rejecting claim of appellant whereas criminal case has no relevance with the payment that is to be ensured to the appellant, and at no point of time, any pecuniary loss has been caused by the appellant and accordingly special appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. Claim has been resisted by learned Standing Counsel by contending that here appellant has been charge-sheeted, criminal trial has been on going and once criminal charge is in reference of discharge of his duty, rightful decision has been taken in accordance with the provision of Civil Service Regulation 351-A read with Regulation 919-A(3) as well as Government Order dated 28.10.1980.

5. In order to appreciate respective arguments this Court proceeds to examine the Government Order dated 28.10.1980 as well as Government Order dated 28.7.1989. Relevant extract of the aforesaid Government Orders is being extracted below :

Government Order 28.10.1980

^^la[;k&3&1679@nl &80&909&79

izs"kd]

Jh ckyd`”.k prqosZnh

fo'ks"k lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok es

leLr foHkkxk/;{k ,oa izeq[k dk;kZy;kè;{k]

mRrj izns'kA

y[kuÅ fnukad 28 vDVwcj]1980

fo"k;%& lsok fuo`Rr ljdkjh lsodksa] ftuds fo:) oSHkkfxd U;kf;d dk;Zokgh vFkok iz'kklukf/kdj.k lrdZrk tkap py jgh gS] dks vfUre isa'ku dk HkqxrkuA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr fo"k; ij eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd jkT; ljdkj ds isa'ku laca/kh orZeku fu;eksa esa vHkh rd bl vk'k; dk dksbZ fof'k"V izko/kku ugha gS fd lsok fuo`fRr ds fnukad dks vFkok lsok fuo`Rr gksus ds mijkUr ;fn dksbZ deZpkjh ds fo:) dksbZ foHkkxh; U;kf;d dk;Zokgh vFkok iz'kklukf/kdj.k@lrdZrk tkap tkjh gks vFkok tkjh fd;k tkuk visf{kr gks rks D;k mls isa'ku rFkk vU; uSo`fRrd ykHkns; gksaxs ;k ughaA mDr fLFkfr esa lkekU;r% viuk;s x;s n`f"Vdks.k vkSj iz;qDr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj tc rd ml dk;Zokgh vFkok tkap dk ifj.kke izkIr u gks tk; rc rd lacaf/kr lsod dks dksbZ isa'ku o xzsP;qVh dk Hkqxrku ugh fd;k tkrk gSA mDRk dk;Zokfg;ksa vkSj tkap ds iwjh gksus vkSj fQj vko';d vkSipkfjdrk;sa iwjh dj vfUre fu.kZ; ysus esa vf/kd le; Hkh yx ldrk gS vkSj ml n'kk esa lacaf/kr lsok fuo`Rr deZpkjh o"kksZ rd lsok fuo`fRrd ykHkksa ls oafpr jgrk gS ftlls mls dkQh vkfFkZd dfBukbZ dk lkeuk djuk iM+ ldrk gSA blds vfrfjDr dbZ ekeyksa esa dk;Zokgh ;k tkap ds ifj.kkeLo:i deZpkjh funksZ"k ik;k tk ldrk gSA bl izlax esa vkidk /;ku 'kk0vk0la0lk&3&2085@nl&907@76] fnukad 13&12&1977 d